From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue Aug 26 07:01:27 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA11618
          for stable-outgoing; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gratia.it.hq.nasa.gov (gratia.it.hq.nasa.gov [131.182.119.134])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA11598
          for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 07:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov (WireHead.it.hq.nasa.gov [131.182.119.88])
	by gratia.it.hq.nasa.gov (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA15853;
	Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (cshenton@localhost) by wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA16902; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 14:00:55 GMT
Message-Id: <199708261400.OAA16902@wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov>
X-Authentication-Warning: wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov: cshenton owned process doing -bs
To: dg@root.com
Cc: rdkeys@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
        grog@lemis.com
Subject: Re: 2.2-STABLE 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:45:14 -0700"
References: <199708252245.PAA04397@implode.root.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.69 on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
	----
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:00:51 -0400
From: Chris Shenton <cshenton@it.hq.nasa.gov>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 15:45:14 -0700
David Greenman <dg@root.com> wrote:

dg>    No, that is not what -stable is. The current head of each major
dg> branch that releases are cut from (e.g. 2.1.x, 2.2.x, and
dg> eventually 3.0.x) are refered to as "-stable" after the first
dg> release is cut. The designation -stable means "more stable than
dg> the most recent release on this branch". 

So would it be useful to create a CVSup target called "STABLE" or
"STABLE_2_2" instead of "RELENG_2_2"?

The RELENG and descriptions I've seen in the CVSup docs make it sound
like it's the engineering release leading *up* to 2.2-RELEASE, rather
than 2.2-RELEASE plus bug/security fixes which would make it stable.

Sorry, I really didn't want to open up a can o' worms on this one again...