Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:40:12 -0800 (PST) From: -Vince- <vince@apollo.COSC.GOV> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, julian@ref.tfs.com, jc@irbs.com, current@FreeBSD.org, FAQ@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 update Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951101233836.15405v-100000@apollo.COSC.GOV> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951101231224.26683A-100000@latte.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, -Vince- wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Ollivier Robert wrote: > > > > > It seems that -Vince- said: > > > > > At some point after 2.1, -CURRENT will probably become 2.3-CURRENT and > > > > > -STABLE will be 2.2-STABLE to end up with 2.2-RELEASE and so on. > > > > > > > > So what you are saying is that -release is really just -current > > > > at some point? and -stable is just really -current before a -release? > > > > > > Not really. > > > > > > What we have *now* is: > > > > > > * 2.1-STABLE will become 2.1-RELEASE > > > * 2.2-CURRENT aka "the Bleeding Edge(tm)". > > > > Yes, but won't people in 2.1-RELEASE when it comes out be supping > > -CURRENT once again? > > > > > What we will [probably] have is > > > > > > * 2.2-CURRENT become 2.2-STABLE after 2.1-RELEASE is out. It is intended to > > > be 2.2-RELEASE one day. > > > > > > When 2.2-STABLE begins its life, 2.3-CURRENT will begin and so on. > > > > > > Note as I'm not part of the core team so what is above are only my > > > thoughts, they may want to change the numbers :-) > > > > Oh okay, it seems like everyone has a different way of explaining > > this =) > > Maybe that's right, but it's not what I understood to be true. Understand > that this stuff is not written in stone, there are no contracts forcing > things to happen in any particular manner, but I had the understanding > that we were going to be doing a dual-track thing. The even numbered > releases were to be ones that would concentrate on stability, and so the > possibility of these being late would be kinda high. Balancing this out > would be the odd numbered releases, which would satisfy those (like me) > that wanted more frequent releases. The combination, it was to be hoped, > might possibly satisfy those of both camps. Using this thinking, there > will not be a 2.2 stable, just a 2.2 RELEASE, and the next stable target, > for those using FreeBSD for more than a hobby, would be 2.4. Hmmm, but if -stable is turned to RELEASE, what happens to the next stable? Is it just based on the on-going -CURRENT release after the RELEASE? I'm just confused =) Cheers, -Vince- vince@COSC.GOV - GUS Mailing Lists Admin UC Berkeley AstroPhysics - Electrical Engineering (Honorary B.S.) Chabot Observatory & Science Center - Board of Advisors Running FreeBSD - Real UN*X for Free! Linda Wong/Vivian Chow/Hacken Lee/Danny Chan Fan Club Mailiing Lists Admin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.951101233836.15405v-100000>