From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Apr 9 15:55:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83DDB37B424 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:55:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 11404 invoked by uid 100); 9 Apr 2001 22:55:13 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15058.15825.422218.278218@guru.mired.org> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:55:13 -0500 To: Przemyslaw Brojewski , Kal Torak , Christopher Schulte , "Matthew Emmerton" , Jordan Hubbard , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Releases In-Reply-To: <200104091816.UAA03404@flip.tenbit.pl> References: <20010409102526S.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <20010409105223C.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <014a01c0c12e$e5e76f20$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> <5.0.2.1.0.20010409101533.00ace930@pop.schulte.org> <5.0.2.1.0.20010409111054.00b18008@pop.schulte.org> <200104091911.MAA32457@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <3AD20ECC.5A895124@quake.com.au> <20010409193544.A25126@acc.umu.se> <200104091816.UAA03404@flip.tenbit.pl> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kal Torak types: > There is nothing wrong with the current label system... As it has been > said RTFM!!! Its not a hard concept to grasp, there are thousands of > people that understand it just fine, for those few that dont it wouldnt > matter what labels you used they would still not understand... > > Since there is no problem to be solved here, lets kill this thread and > get on with more important things... Wrong. The problem is that the common perception of the meaning of "BETA" causes people to want to know how not to get a BETA when it shows up. Those of us who try to contribute via -questions have to put up with it there as well as here. If there's a simple solution to making the problem go away, I'd certainly like to have it happen. Matthew Emmerton types: > In the case of people running -CURRENT on a production machine, that's just > a plain and simple mistake. Ever wonder how someone who barely knows how to > use cvsup and make world manages to obtain -CURRENT in the first place? No, because it happens to everyone who uses the standard-supfile in the /usr/share/examples/cvsup. I think that stable-supfile should vanish from that directory, and standard-supfile should be right for the branch the system came from, no matter which branch that was. > Next, the case of -STABLE/-BETA/-RC/-RELEASE. I still maintain that -BETA > is confusing to the newbie (since due to M$, betas of IE were more like > pre-alphas and totally trashed most systems and rightly freak out most > novice admins), while STABLE/RC/RELEASE just makes sense. However, this > isn't in the handbook and should be, so that people on the list can say "go > to handbook/release-process.html" and people unfamiliar with our release > process will become enlightened. You can already say "go to FAQ/admin.html#RELEASE-CANDIDATE". That doesn't stop the questions. While all of them cause problems > Finally, almost every newbie I see asking a question asks "how can I do this > on FreeBSD, and where is the HOWTO- to help me?" Most often these people > are redirected to offsite repositories of information, rather than the > documentation included with FreeBSD. IMHO, this contributes to the > degradation of the existing documentation of FreeBSD, as more effort will go > into updating third-party sources. Note that the third-party repositories don't have a chance to be vetted by committers, who will presumably catch obsolete, inaccurate, or suboptimal information. Between these two problems, they are clearly bad for the community. If you maintain one of those things - I'd be interested in knowing why you aren't submitting them to the documentation project, instead of maintaining your own repository? Jordan Hubbard types: > > Just because the problem is difficult to solve does not mean it can not be > > or should not be solved. > Fine, how about you solve it and the rest of us will get back to all > the other stuff we have on our plates. :) I know, you're kidding. But if some group of people who have to deal with the questions propose a complete new naming scheme designed to deal with all the problems we see the current ones causing (though the only serious one is -BETA/-RC), is there any chance of it being adopted? How about just a new name for either -BETA (the major source of the problem), or simply calling -STABLE -ALPHA, thus making -BETA & -RC seem desirable? http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message