Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:19:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: jdl@chromatic.com Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Release numbering Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950917131334.168B-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199509170528.AAA14969@chrome.onramp.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> Apparently, "Jordan K. Hubbard" scribbled:
> > The only serious question still to be resolved is just when the
> > "rollover" happens? Does 2.1.x live forever, or does it get abandoned
> > with 2.2.x is "stable?"
>
> Personally, I think trying to maintain a strict 2.1 derived base for
> a very long time will become fairly problematic. You'll likely end
> up with the nightmare of figuring out which variant of which patch
> gets applied to which branches and the resulting rev interlock.
> Been there done that. Wasn't too much fun then either.
>
I agree here. Release bug fixes for 2.1.x if something drastic comes up,
but as soon as 2.2 becomes as stable as 2.1, push it out the door as a
release and start thinking about 2.3.
>
> > Does 2.1 just become 2.3 at some point,
> > leaving the odd numbered releases as the "stable" ones and the even
> > numbered ones as "experimental?"
>
> Isn't that what the makers of the Star Trek movies decided to do? :-)
> Oh wait, no. The odd ones sucked and the even ones were good, right?
>
> Yea, this is probably the basic approach to take. As soon as 2.1 goes
> out the door, people are generally going to breath a huge sigh of
> relief, take a break, and then be real gung-ho about 2.2. Why not
> just let everyone work on 2.2 until it too gets to a reasonably
> stable point and then call it "stable" at the same time introduce 2.3
> as the next development release. Just pipeline it, not leapfrog it?
I completely agree. Leapfrogging releases a la Linux kernel, is too
confusing. People are going to get 2.1, then see 2.2 on the FTP site, not
realize it's 2.2-bleeding-edge-sig11, download it, and screw up their
machines. I'd rather see a 2.2-current (even though I have ambivalent
feelings about the name current to mean "bleeding edge"), that would
slowly become 2.2-RELEASE, than a 2.2-current that became 2.3!
> > In short, we may be digging ourselves a deep hole if we can't decide
> > just how this is all going to work.
>
> Agreed.
Other than the name "current" being a little confusing, the release
schedule as it exists now is just fine. But trying to maintain three or
four different simultaneous release trees is going to be hell. Having a
-stable and a -current is a good idea now, but when 2.1.0 is finally
released, we may be able to get away with just a -RELEASE and -current,
which would sure save effore integrating changes from -current back into
-stable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Hamby | E-Mail: jehamby@lightside.com
Student, Cal Poly University, Pomona | System Administrator, JPL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950917131334.168B-100000>