From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Mar 17 10: 4:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.ddg.com (eunuch.ddg.com [216.30.58.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038F037BF9A for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:04:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from eel (24.28.73.101) by mail.ddg.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:04:05 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: which branch? Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:39:48 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG References: <38D1C75D.AEC542C2@gorean.org> <4.3.2.20000317110436.00a9f580@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.20000317110436.00a9f580@207.227.119.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00031712040402.01121@eel> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Jeffrey J. Mountin wrote: > Bleh... > > Just a matter of using different words that mean the same thing. No! To the newcomers, the WORDS have conotations. Historically, the developers have established a terminology that confuses new users and causes them to choose the wrong version. To most new users, STABLE is something that is ready for PRODUCTION use. CURRENT is the a recent release. DEVELOPMENT, ALPHA, BETA, etc. are pre-release. If we want to grow market share (and we NEED that if FreeBSD is to be more than a sandbox), the first impression is important. I think that it is important PR to change the name of the head branch. > >Speaking of mailing lists, we REALLY need an additional list. It is > >unfair, and confusing, to have no solidly distinct lists for the 3.x, 4.x > >and 5.x branches. > > What makes it confusing. There is a distinct list for 5.x, but having 3.x > and 4.x stable on the same list should help migration, IMO. People are accustomed to using "current" for 4.x. They should not have to change mailing lists just because a new head branch was developed. As for "volume" of mail on stable, there are a number of readers who don't want to be bothered with the still high volume of problems that are occuring in 4.0-UNSTABLE. Heads-up messages should correspond 1-1 with the repository commits. To change both 3.x and 4.x requires two separate commits. Therefore there should be two messages (one to each list) > Those that are migrating have no need to track and later change to a > different list. I don't suggest that they do. When migrating, they should join and review the list of the new system. > Fact of the matter is that if, when subscribing, the subscriber actually > read what the list if for, then they would know which list(s) to subscribe > to. Changing the names would do little for this. Using the release number > might help, but then we all know that someone will be asking the where and > when of the 5.x version. "Well, it was the highest number." Actually, I would make 5.x a weak alias to the development list. and turn it into a real list (advertise its existence, etc) only when we approach the testing phase before a release. > > To be fair we would need a 2-stable list. I see no problem with that. It would have virtually no traffic except for security announcements, etc. OTOH, it could also become an alias to the "unsupported" list. > Leave -current alone and should a 3-stable and 4-stable appear, they will > just end up in the same folder. I don't think that is the best approach for the NON-DEVELOPER newbies. It's far easier to get knowledgable developers to make a one-time change than it is to keep repeating the FAQ to newbies over and over. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message