From owner-cvs-sys Thu Aug 1 20:27:19 1996 Return-Path: owner-cvs-sys Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA15257 for cvs-sys-outgoing; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spinner.DIALix.COM (spinner.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.67]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA15247; Thu, 1 Aug 1996 20:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spinner.DIALix.COM (localhost.DIALix.oz.au [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.DIALix.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA18782; Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:26:36 +0800 (WST) Message-Id: <199608020326.LAA18782@spinner.DIALix.COM> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: "Gary Palmer" , Peter Wemm , CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf newvers.sh In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Aug 1996 18:29:08 MST." <10243.838949348@time.cdrom.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 11:26:35 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk "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