Date: 10 Jun 1996 18:25:33 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "hackers@FreeBSD.org" <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, "Joerg Wunsch" <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re(2): Re(2): Re(2): The naming of branches Message-ID: <n1377691353.14866@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This might be true, but we have already once changed our paradigm > (between 2.0 and 2.0.5 -- from RELEASE_X_Y to RELENG_X_Y_Z), and > changing it too often is IMHO causing more confusion than clarity. Did you read the rest of it? Rodney explained why you went to X-Y-Z. I have no problem with that. However, I still suggest that "2_2_X" will serve every function that I have seen presented and still avoid the disorientation that "2_2_0" causes after there is a 2_2_0_RELEASE and development continues on the 2_2 branch. -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n1377691353.14866>