Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:52:22 -0500 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd naming of releases Message-ID: <7962bb4e13837c894301545d628215f6@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20050328231825.K52981@lexi.siliconlandmark.com> References: <3aaaa3a0503271958205ca8e1@mail.gmail.com> <4248BBB8.3090405@pacific.net.sg> <20050328231825.K52981@lexi.siliconlandmark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 28, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: >> I know that there is some explanation for the terms at the site but >> why should terms be used which need an extra eplanation? > > I find that the terms "alpha", "beta" and "production" do not quite > fit the FreeBSD development paradigm. (Is RELENG_5 beta or > production?) It's beta. -CURRENT (or RELENG_6) is alpha, and production is now at RELENG_5_3 and/or RELENG_4_11. During the release cycle, RELENG_5 will be frozen and tagged, and for a brief time will have the same contents as the newly created RELENG_5_4 branch (call it "gamma" or "production"), but after the release is out and RELENG_5 is unfrozen, it will go back to being "beta". -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7962bb4e13837c894301545d628215f6>