From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 9:48: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CB537B718; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:48:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA54015; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:47:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <200103161747.JAA54015@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' In-Reply-To: <20010316091602N.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> from Jordan Hubbard at "Mar 16, 2001 09:16:02 am" To: jkh@osd.bsdi.com (Jordan Hubbard) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:47:46 -0800 (PST) Cc: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, bright@wintelcom.net, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Drop by the newsgroup. There was a thread last week about > > someone using cvsup expecting to get 4.2-stable and he got > > 4.3-beta. He was annoyed and confused because he thought > > beta meant "beta quality" (as in inferior software). > > Well, there are two different things here though: > > 1. The usage of "BETA" to denote some pre-release collection of bits > on an FTP site. > > 2. The usage of BETA in newvers.sh > > I think it's #2 which is actually causing all the problems here and I > would happily forgo changing newvers.sh until it's time for the actual > release. I don't usually mark it BETA myself, but one of my helpers > here jumped the gun this time. :) As the implementor of this part of newvers.sh I would have to say that the use of BRANCH has been heavly overloaded by the release engineers (including myself) to indicated points on a BRANCH. One thing that I probably did differently was that the points on a branch were usually never committed, I simply edited the copy in my build tree, built the -ALPHA, -BETA, whatever, and put the bits up. If anything I would like to see this changed to be more in line with that. Perhaps commit the -BETA, then immediately commit it back to -STABLE so we can use these commit dates in a cvs co -d to get the same tree that release engineering used to build the release, but those cvsuping are very very unlikely to see a -BETA version. You have to change both the version and the branch up and back down, not so sure I feel good about that :-(. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message