From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 23:29:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2E037B401 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cobble.capnet.state.tx.us (cobble.capnet.state.tx.us [141.198.179.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A19343FA3 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 23:29:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsdstable@cobble.capnet.state.tx.us) Received: from cobble.capnet.state.tx.us (localhost.capnet.state.tx.us [127.0.0.1])h586UWd5024844 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 01:30:32 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fbsdstable@cobble.capnet.state.tx.us) Received: from localhost (fbsdstable@localhost)h586UWEL024841 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2003 01:30:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 01:30:32 -0500 (CDT) From: stuart nichols To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20030608050424.GA3912@christian.chrullrich.de> Message-ID: <20030608010921.C24680-100000@cobble.capnet.state.tx.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: What happened with 5.1-RELEASE? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 06:29:15 -0000 On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Christian Ullrich wrote: > * Scott Lambert schrieb am Samstag, 2003-06-07: > > Personally, I think someone should create a read protected directory > > named 6.5-RELEASE. Maybe with an ISO of the latest release that is > > modified to load a graphic that tells people to stop being so grabby. > On the contrary. Think of it that way: Each time someone demonstrates > his or her "grabbiness", they do what they probably wouldn't think of > doing if they knew better: They _test_ the unreleased code. Yep. I've loaded it twice so far and it hasn't given me any problems on the two machines it is now on (about 30 hours and 12 hours). But I always thoroughly test the releases. I usually test the release candidates, also. In my case, I'd be testing the heck out of 5.1-R anyway, after the official release. It's part of my job, and has been since 1.1.5.1. Don't want people to grab it early? Load it to a different tree and do an mv at release time. Having a 5.1-RELEASE directory tree with no access confuses people, but having access come-and-go is even more confusing. Asking if the removal of access was due to some problem, such as a newly-discovered security bug for example, seems legitimate. stu