Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:44:46 -0800 From: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG (Bruce A. Mah) To: "Ned Wolpert" <wolpert@codeheadsystems.com> Cc: stijn@win.tue.nl, bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, q@uni.de, toni@stderror.at, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.0-STABLE ??? Message-ID: <200301221644.h0MGik3S014975@intruder.bmah.org> In-Reply-To: <1377.192.168.1.50.1043244297.squirrel@www.codeheadsystems.com> 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> <1377.192.168.1.50.1043244297.squirrel@www.codeheadsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--==_Exmh_-1235546820P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, "Ned Wolpert" wrote: > > 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... ) If you haven't already, please go read Early Adopter's Guide for 5.0. Most of what I have to say on this topic is contained with that document. > 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) Yes. > 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? I honestly don't know what "general public" means in this context. Again, please read the EAG and make your own decisions. > 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) Breakage has been known to happen in RELENG_4 as well. HEAD is in a "semi-frozen" state (please see the releng page on the Web site for a more precise definition of this). > 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.) This is essentially correct, but as I wrote in an earlier message, you should probably be less concerned about what the exact sequence of branching is than the state of the code at the time it's branched. Bruce. --==_Exmh_-1235546820P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 iD8DBQE+Lsp92MoxcVugUsMRAhdFAKDytur2KwaxitIGQBBuXxtbiPKJAgCfWrtY wQfh8BOt7NhPToVTXt/gqnE= =pi4y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1235546820P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301221644.h0MGik3S014975>