Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:25:03 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, simon@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [simon@FreeBSD.org: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssl/ssl d1_both.c ?dtls1.h ssl.h ssl_err.c] Message-ID: <1193160303.23437.63.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <200710231622.l9NGMghL042088@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200710231622.l9NGMghL042088@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 18:22 +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> > RELENG_7 isn't -STABLE yet
>
> Uhm, are you sure? In the past, whenever a new RELENG
> branch was created, it was implicitly the next -stable
> branch, because -current moved on to the next version
> number. Did that policy change?
It is implicitly the *next* -stable but it's not there yet. That's what
Simon was saying.
FreeBSD's development (specifically the CVS repository) is public. But
the bottom line is that the RELENG_X branches are *development*
branches. If we were a corporation those would be private to the
Developers. As such the RELENG_X branches at times have nebulous
states, gray zones, etc. We're in one such gray zone now. If I needed
to come up with a name for RELENG_7 right now it would be what I set its
name to when I first branched it: 7.0-PRERELEASE.
It doesn't officially become -stable until there has been a release done
from it.
I've said this many times before. There are lots of people out there
who use RELENG_X. But strictly speaking that's a *development* branch.
There can be glitches while using it, mistakes do get made on it, etc.
We don't want to act like a private company, we don't want to hide the
development work. BUT we *do* need to have RELENG_X as a development
tool and people using it need to realize that's exactly what it is. The
RELENG_X_Y branches are what is meant for "general public consumption".
> If it did change, I'm curious to know what the version
> 7 branch is called right now (6 being -stable and 8
> being -current)? I assume we do not have two -current
> branches at the same time, do we?
No change in any policies or anything like that. What I'm describing
has been the status quo for a long time but people tend to forget or
never quite "get it" or ... so I'm sure you're not the only one thinking
this way.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBHHi5v/G14VSmup/YRAuCAAKCU7fsUahOuTCR6IKipAei2lXTBfwCfX9I9
M0IHFtKN0pGR+k521H6h0f8=
=e5AM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1193160303.23437.63.camel>