From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 12: 9:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA3337B71A for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:09:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2GK97o21627; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:09:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:09:07 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Terry Lambert Cc: Garance A Drosihn , Jordan Hubbard , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Message-ID: <20010316120906.D29888@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200103161946.MAA16289@usr02.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200103161946.MAA16289@usr02.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 07:46:48PM +0000 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG My main objection is to the newvers.sh change that happens right before the next -release, anyhow here's some suggestions: * Terry Lambert [010316 11:57] wrote: > > I've only been following freebsd for two or three years, but every > > single time freebsd starts ramping up for a release I see some newbie > > freebsd users come on "lily" (our equivalent of IRC) and say > > "Hey, I meant to get N.x-stable, but I got N.x+1-beta!! > > What did I do wrong? How do I back out?" > > > > It only takes a few minutes to calm them down and say "that's > > just the way freebsd does things, don't worry about it", but it > > does happen (with different people, of course) for every release > > that I've seen. > > > > How about calling it: > > 4.3-pre-release > > > > When we then create a new branch after the release (the "super > > stable, critical bug-fixes only" branch), we can call that > > 4.3-post-release > > > -stable > -release > -stable-rc (stable, release candidate) > > The people with the problems may wonder about the "-rc" suffix, > but with "stable" there as a prefix, they will probably ignore > it, after wondering for a second whether it's the initials of > the last person to commit changes or something... Yes, people are used to seeing something like: Linux-2.2.3232.2.2-STABLE+alc+spiff ^^^^^^ On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:16:02AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > 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. :) Yes, the real problem with this is '2' (newvers.sh), there's nothing wrong with using 'BETA' in the names on the ftp site. So either quit doing '2' or use a variant of Terry's suggestion '-stable-rc' ~ % uname -srm FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE-RC i386 Would be a lot less scary than -BETA. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message