Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:52:09 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Mark Huizer <xaa@stack.nl> Cc: Wolfgang Helbig <helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Message-ID: <1023.870706329@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 Aug 1997 16:42:38 %2B0200." <19970804164238.16405@xaa.stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well... I would seriously dislike the idea of ports not working on current, > since I run that at home. But I like ports for stable too, since I run it > on cvsup.nl.freebsd.org. But that's only two releases. What about 2.1.*? Well, I see FreeBSD has having 3 branches at any given time: current: Bleeding edge. stable: The release branch, AKA "stable" after a short transition. legacy: The previous release branch in phase-out mode. We've confused things more than a little bit in the past by calling both the legacy branch and the release branch "stable", but I think we've learned from that experience and can start using less confusing nomenclature in the future. In any case, I don't see maintaining ports for anything but -stable as useful or necessary, the -current people basically using the -stable ports tree for as long as it works (and the current fracas with TCL aside, it largely *does* work even now if you go by straight percentages). Once we started getting reasonably close to rotating stable to legacy and current to stable, that's when we'd transition the ports/packages collection to the new stable branch and fix up whatever broke before finally doing a combined release. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1023.870706329>