From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 1 18:32:50 2003 Return-Path: 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 DACBF37B401 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED22443F3F for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h322WnKu076121; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h322WnTH007990; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.8/Submit) id h322WnX6007989; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 18:32:49 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030402023249.GB7705@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030401141454.N43325-100000@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <87znnaw7vq.fsf@pooh.honeypot.net> <20030401224035.R474@trillian.santala.org> <20030401222116.GB5246@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030402021244.GA7705@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030402022110.GA6181@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030402022110.GA6181@rot13.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i cc: Jarkko Santala Subject: Re: 4.8-RELEASE vs SA-03:07 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 02:32:51 -0000 On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:12:44PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > I think this does not automaticly follow. If you use the -RC label for > > identifying the release when it's in a state of final QA and not to > > identify the release when it's in -ALPHA or -BETA state, then you avoid > > using the -RELEASE label when it's still possible that tags slide. > > And what about the last-minute (but easily fixed) bug that is > discovered after the -RELEASE tag goes down, whenever that happens in > the process? Either you slide the tag to fix the bug or you don't. > That's what the original poster was talking about. If you use the -RELEASE label as a formal label while using the -RC label during final QA, you don't fix bugs once you put down the -RELEASE label, because you don't slide it. An equivalent situation is when you find a bug when mirrors are being populated. Do you stop that to rebuild the release with a fix? [rethorical question] There's always an ultimate moment before which you can correct and adjust and after which you're f*cked. We don't have this moment defined by a tag, but it's not uncommon to have the -RELEASE tag define that moment. I think this is what Jarkko expected (ie having the -RELEASE tag define the release, no matter if it's DOA). -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net