Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:43:14 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: (Garance A Drosihn) <drosih@rpi.edu>, (Jordan Hubbard) <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, arch@FreeBSD.org, (Alfred Perlstein) <bright@wintelcom.net> Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Message-ID: <XFMail.010316154314.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200103162250.PAA17018@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-Mar-01 Terry Lambert wrote: >> > So either quit doing '2' or use a variant of >> > Terry's suggestion '-stable-rc' >> > >> > ~ % uname -srm >> > FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE-RC i386 >> >> Except that it's not a real release candidate. Which is why we don't >> just use -RC the whole time. -RC means that we would actually feel >> confident releasing that exact source on the CD's as foo-RELEASE. >> This is not true for foo-BETA, as it is a time for people to test >> stuff out and spot things that need to be fixed. > > So what's the difference in tags between a release candidate and > a beta? > > 8-). I just said. :-P I wouldn't want to put a raw 4.3-BETA out on the CD's, instead -BETA is the time during which we test it out and try to shake out bugs, polish things, etc. so that we can then move onto a 4.3-RC that could go out on the CD's just like it is. Then just to be paranoid we let the -RC get tested a while before doing the release. > ..."Beta" is well known to be a synonym for "my cat wrote the > floppy disk driver"... I thought it meant something more along the lines of test version, but I assume if we did 4.3-TEST everyone would freak out then as well. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010316154314.jhb>