Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: sjt@cisco.com (Steve Tremblett) Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Releases Message-ID: <200104101534.IAA35432@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <200104101336.JAA16571@sjt-u10.cisco.com> from Steve Tremblett at "Apr 10, 2001 09:36:40 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
...
> People say "read the handbook". If it is written in stone there,
> someone please re-edit this section:
>
> --------
> 19.2.2.2. Who needs FreeBSD-STABLE?
>
> If you are a commercial user or someone who puts maximum stability of
> their FreeBSD system before all other concerns, you should consider
> tracking stable. This is especially true if you have installed the most
> recent release (4.2-RELEASE at the time of this writing) since the
> stable branch is effectively a bug-fix stream relative to the previous
> release.
> --------
>
> please add "once every few months it will say BETA but don't worry, it
> isn't really a beta, because it is more stable than STABLE!"
Ahhh... well... in my 8 years of being around FreeBSD when we enter
the -BETA phase on the -STABLE branch the tree goes to hell in a
hand basket for about 2 weeks. So please don't make the handbook
state the above. Perhaps more like:
Every few months in preperation for the next -RELEASE from the
-STABLE branch the system will call itself -BETA, this is to reflect
the fact that lots of changes are occuring in the tree, mainly merges
of well tested code from the developers branch (-CURRENT). The tag
-BETA is used to denoate that these events are occuring and you may
enconter minor problems. This is not like a -BETA product from most
software companies, as the code being brought in has general had a
rather extensive test period, but the project has no way to test all
code in all situations and breakage is bound to happen.
> To be honest, I don't see the release process discussed in the handbook
> at all! There is a section explaining STABLE vs. CURRENT, but that's
> about it.
The release process is black magic passed down through the generations
and just as the code is continuously evolving, so is the release process.
Documenting black magic is really hard unless you get a technical writter
doing the black magic, or one to spend a month sitting beside the
practitioner taking really detailed notes.
The tag sequences could be better documented, or err, the newvers.sh
changes that occuring during the phases could be better documented.
>
> I reiterate: the term BETA implies the testing phase of new code. The
> FBSD folks insist that it is just STABLE, and have to answer endless
> questions about it. If it is just STABLE, and more solid than STABLE,
> why have a BETA at all?
Because those who claim it is ``just STABLE, and more solid than STABLE''
are making false claims. It is not really all that stable during this
time period. BETA may be a bit on the strong side, but as already pointed
out, the tree does de-stabalize during this time period.
> Sorry for opening this can of worms - my apologies.
Though many have called this a bikeshed, and at times I have agreed
that a lot of what is being said is a bikeshed (names are names, people
who attatch permanent fixed meaning to names are going to have problems
understanding lots of things, the -STABLE, -RELEASE, -BETA, -CURRENT
tags being one of them.) But I have seen 2 things come up in this
last round of this 8 year old thread that could actually use some
fixing:
a) Rename the standard-supfile, that one in itself has caused a lot
of grief and is a trivial change with minimal impact to the masses
as it really should only be used by -developers, who know how to
deal with all this.
b) Correct everyone who says ``FreeBSD -BETA is really just as stable
as the normal -STABLE. It is not! During this phase of a branch
things get borked all over the place, from not being able to build
the tree due to partial MFC's or botched commits, to kernels that
crash and burn due to subtle bugs and corner cases that didn't get
tested in -CURRENT due to the smaller user base and narrower scope
of hardware being tested on.
One way to correct this would be to actually branch for -BETA, then
once the group of us -STABLE users who actually have a clue about
how to build and test this stuff have had a fair chance (2 weeks?)
to pound it a bit merge it back into -STABLE in one big sweep and
call it -RC. This is a short lived branch, but may have a rather
high impact on cvsup resources due to the tagging operations required
to do this type of operation cleanly.
The masses would never see -BETA, but it would be done by people
who actually know how to be beta testers :-)
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104101534.IAA35432>