Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary Kline <kline@tera.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, imp@village.org, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710042155.OAA25074@athena.tera.com> In-Reply-To: <199710041806.MAA23536@rocky.mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Oct 4, 97 12:06:31 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Nate Williams: > > How CVS fits in this is really irrelevant, since the users don't care > for the most part how it's done, and CVS will support whatever we want > it to do. > > There is a *huge* different from a 2.2-stable box that was built slightl > after '2.2-RELEASE', and one built today. It would be nice (and trivial > to do) to have the branch tag change *AFTER* 2.2.5 to say > '2.2.5-stable'. > > But, it doesn't have to happen until *after* the bits are set down for > 2.2.5, so arguments now are only wasting time. We can always argue for > it after 2.2.5 is done. :) :) > > > Nate > > ps. I note that the 'tag' used to denote '2.2-RELEASE' is > "RELENG_2_2_0_RELEASE" and *NOT* "RELENG_2_2_RELEASE", which is what > Jordan is arguing about. Even internally the tags seem to support what > Rod and others are arguing for, we just want to make that information > available to the kernel. > This view wins over Jordon's for the evidence presented in the first paragraph. The CVS//RCS intrinsics have meaning solely to the people who use it--FreeBSD.org in our case. The user-community sees things from a different perspective; and here, as elsewhere, perception is the _only_ thing that counts. gary kline
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710042155.OAA25074>