From owner-cvs-all Tue Sep 15 03:43:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from daemon@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA07620 for cvs-all-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:43:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA07614 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:43:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA13574; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:43:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Jun Kuriyama cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When is the branch point for RELENG_3_0 ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:52:59 +0900." <35FE38FB.E842279@sky.rim.or.jp> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 03:43:43 -0700 Message-ID: <13570.905856223@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > BTW, when is the branch point for RELENG_3_0? We are in BETA cycle > for 3.0-RELEASE, so we cannot check-in experimental code into this > branch for a month. > Is branching day the day when 3.0-RELEASE is rolled out? Probably a bit later. Rather than feed 3 branches prematurely (2.2-stable, 3.0-stable and 3.1(?)-current), I think it'd be a better idea to work on stabilizing the single 3.0-current branch for awhile after the 3.0-RELEASE and not have to start merging stuff right away. Once we've cleaned up some of the worst problems which will inevitably be reported following the release date (and more folks running this code), I think it'll be a better time to branch the tree. I do also realize that this will perhaps discourage some of the "highly experimental" development that otherwise might want to immediately follow 3.0's release, but I think there's less potential trouble with that than there is in having to merge a lot of triage work between 2 branches right from the outset. - Jordan