From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Jan 22 6: 5: 3 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2813437B401; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:05:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from www.codeheadsystems.com (codeheadsystems.com [68.14.217.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFB643F13; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 06:04:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wolpert@codeheadsystems.com) Received: from codeheadsystems.com (www.codeheadsystems.com [127.0.0.1]) by www.codeheadsystems.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h0ME4qBM065331; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:04:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wolpert@codeheadsystems.com) Received: from 192.168.1.50 (SquirrelMail authenticated user wolpert) by www.codeheadsystems.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:04:57 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <1377.192.168.1.50.1043244297.squirrel@www.codeheadsystems.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:04:57 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: 5.0-STABLE ??? From: "Ned Wolpert" To: In-Reply-To: <20030122082908.GB3772@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <200301192336.h0JNam2r036785@lurza.secnetix.de> <01ad01c2c02c$e84eaf40$0101a8c0@cascade> <20030120032658.GA35779@gforce.johnson.home> <20030120200112.GA98053@devil.stderror.at> <20030121172611.3d2f7082.q@uni.de> <200301211745.h0LHjUIf002336@intruder.bmah.org> <20030122082908.GB3772@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Cc: , , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.8) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > -- Thus, Stijn Hoop had said: > > So this means that HEAD is still kept in a stable state, or at least > stable API-wise, so that 5.1 can be branched from it if needed? What > changes are 'planned' for 5.1? Any overview available? Of course it's > not going to be comprehensive, but I am just wondering. (Slightly off your topic, but this has started to get confusing, so I think we need a better explanation for following stable... ) 5.0 isn't stable, its released. Until there is a RELENG_5, stable is RELENG_4, right? Least from the announcement, it was commented that those needing stability may wish to stay with 4.x branch until 5 is deemed stable. (which is only done when there is a RELENG_5 branch) With that said, for people moving to 5.0, if they want some form of stability, will need to follow RELENG_5_0 for the time being. Following the HEAD really can't be 'stable', least as far as 'general public' is concerned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the best way to go (For general public wishing to stay 'stable' with 5) is to keep switching cvsup file's tag from RELENG_5_0 to RELENG_5_1 as releases occur until 5 is considered stable. Does this sound correct? Also, from my viewpoint (which may differ from reality... ;-) The HEAD may be kept in a stable state API wise for the time being... but it can still break. (It is, after all, -current) So, at the next release, _if_ it is considered stable, then we'd likely see that they'll first branch RELENG_5 from the HEAD, then RELENG_5_1 from RELENG_5. Only because the next release (5.2) will also be branched from RELENG_5. (Course, they could branch RELENG_5 now from the head, mid-release if they wanted, though I doubt it.) Virtually, Ned Wolpert "An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you." --Morris Berman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message