Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:44:03 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@flat.berklix.net> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd naming of releases Message-ID: <200507030944.j639i3Gc052506@fire.jhs.private> In-Reply-To: Message from Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> of "Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:43:49 CDT." <424AD745.2040402@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
HEADS UP Below is a repeat posting dated Wed, 30 Mar 2005. I'm not convinced Chuck re-posted it, as I think I've read it before. I've forwarded to postmasters to investigate. The thread was debated to termination back then, & deosn't need revival now. It might be a troll trying to blow air on embers, or it might be a bad config somewhere, but hopefully all except investigating postmasters, (particularly @mu.org) can ignore it. Thanks -- Julian Stacey Muenchner Unix Urlaubs Vertretungs Dienst http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html = Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz. -------- Chuck Swiger wrote: > Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Charles Swiger wrote: > >>>I find that the terms "alpha", "beta" and "production" do not quite > >>>fit the FreeBSD development paradigm. (Is RELENG_5 beta or > >>>production?) > >> > >>It's beta. -CURRENT (or RELENG_6) is alpha, and production is now at > > > > > > Wrong: Current != Alpha. > > Industry common parlance of "Alpha Release" is per se a sort of (pre) release. > > FreeBSD Current is continuously moving & not a release; eg cvs -r HEAD > > I know that HEAD is continuously moving. Saying code is "in alpha" does not > imply that it is ready for release or being put through a release cycle. > > I suppose that someone comfortable with the term "alpha release" would also be > happy with the notion of "paid beta releases": software made publicly > available to all customers (which is my definition of "going into production", > or perhaps "going into production but trying to avoid providing real support > even if people have paid for the software" is closer :-). > > > Perhaps you equated Alpha & Current because that's the first one > > has access to from commercial companies & FreeBSD respectively, but > > that doesnt make them the same thing. Binaries from a commercial > > company's current one wouldn't normally see (let alone the source :-). > > No, my definition of alpha means "code that works well enough to implement at > least some major features, but may be missing other features and is expected > to contain significant bugs which make it unwise to depend on the system for > production use". Windows jokes aside, commercial companies don't normally > release alpha code to the outside world. > > Beta means "code that is basicly feature-complete modulo bugs, is ready for > outside testing, but still contains significant bugs and is not guaranteed to > be stable for production" (as in, "beta code is not supported"). > > In FreeBSD, one critereon for whether a release is in production, is whether a > security advisory results in that branch being updated. The recent release of > FreeBSD-SA-05:01.telnet resulted in RELENG_5_3, RELENG_4_11, and RELENG_4_10 > being updated as well as HEAD, RELENG_5, & RELENG_4. (Maybe 4.8, too.) > > -- > -Chuck > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > -- Julian Stacey Consultant Systems Engineer, Munich. http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html = Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507030944.j639i3Gc052506>