From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 22 17:28:16 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 1E60C16A4CE
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D0E43D48
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:28:15 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i3N0SFgr072522;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:28:15 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:28:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20040422.182822.00816866.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: dave@horsfall.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.58.0404221649040.8333@dave.horsfall.org>
References: <Pine.BSI.4.58.0404221649040.8333@dave.horsfall.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is 4.10-BETA stable?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:28:16 -0000

In message: <Pine.BSI.4.58.0404221649040.8333@dave.horsfall.org>
            Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> writes:
: Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead...

It appears that re changed the way they are tagging releases again.
The last time we had 4.x-BETA was 4.2.  A review of the cvs log for
the newvers.sh file shows that 5.1 and 5.2 had a BETA release, but all
other 4.x releases since 4.3 went through the sequence

4.x-STABLE -> 4.x+1-PRERELEASE -> 4.x+1-RC -> 4.x+1-STABLE

You'll have to ask re@ why this wasn't done this time.

Warner