Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 11:26:35 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.DIALix.COM> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Wemm <peter@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf newvers.sh Message-ID: <199608020326.LAA18782@spinner.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 1996 18:29:08 MST." <10243.838949348@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > IMHo, wouldn't 2.1.5-STABLE be more appropriate? I'd have thought that > > it'd be nice to indicate a post-2.1.5-R state. > > Hmmmm. That would be more consistent, yes. > > Jordan Ack, this is getting messy. :-( We have the tag RELENG_2_1_0 for the branch, which should have been RELENG_2_1. What is commonly called 2.1R is actually 2.1.0R, and is a point on the 2.1 branch. 2.1.5R is also a point on the 2.1 branch. -stable is a sup of the 2.1 branch as well, not a 2.1.5 branch. If it's going to be called 2.1.5-something, perhaps "2.1.5-MAINT"? After all, the 2.1 branch is now a "dead end" with no more development, and just bug fixes aka "maintenence". Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608020326.LAA18782>