Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:35:53 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What Mailing LIST for 2.2-STABLE Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901251608270.2498-100000@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990125140334.0095c5a0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > Personally, I think the concept of "stable" vs "current" is > easy. I'm not suggesting that the concept (as a point of entry) cease to exist. However, once you are 'in the system', I don't think that the name is so important. For example, I know that I am using the 3.0 version. (Do I really care that it is no longer 'current'?) > Yes, the current revision of "stable" and "current" > continue to move forward, but "stable" is always the latest > release + patches and current is always what on the HEAD. >From the POV of the newcomer, 'current' is a poor name for the head of the development branch. As FreeBSD has grown from simply internal developers to a mix of developers and users, the education of newbees has grown to be a larger problem. Most uninformed users expect the 'current' release to be "stable". As we all know, the HEAD often is not appropriate for them. > >Call the lists "2.2", "3", "HEAD", etc. > > rather than "stable" and "current". > > Yiks!... I'd hate to have to subscribe to 3.1 then 3.2 then > 3.3.... I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting that you should resubscribe each time we fork over a new major branch. (But I have suggested a simple way to make it a 'no brainer' to do so. Consider all the people who subscribed to "current" to be in on the recent testing. If they don't wish to follow the new material (to become FreeBSD-4.x), they are having to resubscribe now. > and I'd hate it MORE if someone changed my subscriptions > for me. Why? As long as you remain on the list and receive the material, the true name of the list is a minor point. Besides, I did not suggest that this happen on the "new" end. However, it might happen on the old end where, IMHO, it is better to move someone to an alternate list rather than simply dropping them. (Although that remains an option) > stable has welcomed postings for prior "stable" releases. Having > multiple lists on fragments the discussions. Continued discussions > of 2.2-stable on -stable is fine. > You'll always have "that's fixed > in the latest stable" no matter what as most folks don't immediately > update to -stable as the commits hit the repository. Well, I don't see it quite that way. If I am still running 2.x, I don't care about the problems of 3.0-UNSTABLE. In another few months, I might look at 3.1-STABLE. But in the interim, the trials of these early adopters are just "noise". Similarly, the problems of the HEAD are "noise" to those who are looking for a stable branch. BTW, I think that it is still somewhat premature to call the 3.x branch "stable". Now that it has branched away from the head, I expect that it will soon become the "recommended to run your business" version. Only at that point would I call it "stable". In my book, it is presently the "current" release. -- And those bleeding edge guys at the HEAD are on a strictly "developmental" branch. Therefore, I would have used this branching as a mechanism to migrate to a new naming convention. Again, for the users, choosing which branch they wish to follow would be as easy as either replying to, or discarding, the invitation to move. The actual divergence would be somewhere down the line from that point in time. At the time they make the choice, the two paths would appear to be equivalent. 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9901251608270.2498-100000>