From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 8 14:54:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk (bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk [128.16.5.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3924815220 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:53:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from T.Pagtzis@cs.ucl.ac.uk) Received: from ginger.cs.ucl.ac.uk by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:53:44 +0000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ambiguity between -STABLE and -RELEASE In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:52:28 EST." <19991108145228.C17714@stat.Duke.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 22:53:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1483.942101624@cs.ucl.ac.uk> From: Theo PAGTZIS Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Guys, many thanks for the response. It seems to me though, that there is a vicious circle that the user is locked in. If there are bugs that are resolved in 3.3-STABLE then the 3.4-RC should entail NO new functionality even if this is supplemental. What I mean is that as a user you, (I feel) would expect to buy the RELEASE (which must be surely a stable one) and do you work in much the same fashion as any other product of work (free or commercial). I feel that the people actually purchasing the CD (and price is not the preventive factor) should be having what you call the "-STABLE" version of the OS not the RELEASE. (Beware I am only referring to the CD sales) In that sense I would recommend some change in the naming (or rather numbering) convention which in my book should be 3.2-RELEASE -> 3.3-STABLE -> 3.3-RC -> 3.3-RELEASE -> 3.4-STABLE and NOT 3.2-RELEASE -> 3.2-STABLE -> 3.3-RC -> 3.3-RELEASE -> 3.3-STABLE Also the bug fixes I suppose that come as a patch to the RELEASE so I do not have to update from CVS (I know how to but some others may not care about CVS). So the RELEASE could be upgradable to the next STABLE by applying a patch (no CVS interaction here). I trust that such patches are indeed existing. I also trust that it is only the -CURRENT that adds any new functionality to the OS which at some point merges with what you call "-STABLE" but the major revision number changes from X.q to Y.0 What are your views? Theo >On 1999 Nov 08, Theo PAGTZIS (aka T.Pagtzis@cs.ucl.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> just a very basic question that would resolve a dispute between colleagues >. >> >> When one talks about Fbsd3.3-STABLE my impression is that such version is a >> stage before the Fbsd3.3-RELEASE. In other words the -RELEASE is for the >> final version and the -STABLE is the version that is soon (after some furthe >r >> bug settling) to become -RELEASE. >> >> Is this the case? > >Theo- >On 1999 Nov 08, Theo PAGTZIS (aka T.Pagtzis@cs.ucl.ac.uk) wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> just a very basic question that would resolve a dispute between colleagues >. >> >> When one talks about Fbsd3.3-STABLE my impression is that such version is a >> stage before the Fbsd3.3-RELEASE. In other words the -RELEASE is for the >> final version and the -STABLE is the version that is soon (after some furthe >r >> bug settling) to become -RELEASE. >> >> Is this the case? > >Theo- > >It's the other way around. Here is approx how we went from 3.2 to present > >3.2-RELEASE -> 3.2-STABLE -> 3.3-RC -> 3.3-RELEASE -> 3.3-STABLE > >(where RC is release candidate). > >S >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Sean O'Connell Email: sean@stat.Duke.EDU >Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences Phone: (919) 684-5419 >Duke University Fax: (919) 684-8594 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message