From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 8 19:10: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3047414CA8 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:09:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chris@holly.dyndns.org) Received: from holly.dyndns.org (adsl-216-62-157-60.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net) by mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.05.24.18.28.p7) with ESMTP id <0FHR00F91SN19P@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:09:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from chris@localhost) by holly.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA99311; Wed, 08 Sep 1999 21:08:47 -0500 (CDT envelope-from chris) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 21:08:47 -0500 From: Chris Costello Subject: Re: Current Development Branches In-reply-to: <002b01befa65$2e564840$010210ac@arrubin> To: Anthony Rubin Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: chris@calldei.com Message-id: <19990908210847.D98739@holly.calldei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.6i References: <002b01befa65$2e564840$010210ac@arrubin> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Anthony Rubin wrote: > I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for > suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things > around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few > problems with 3.3-RC (including determining what RC means) and this makes it "Release Candidate." > hard in my opinion for people with production boxes to cvsup to the -STABLE > branch if they are hoping to solve problems or get the latest patches and > fixes. I would be in favor of a -PRODUCTION branch that can never contain > code that hasn't been tested for a while. I would also like to propose That's the point of the -STABLE branch. Code is explicitly _NOT_ allowed to go into -STABLE without having first been tested in -CURRENT. > a -BETA branch which would be -PRODUCTION with new code added. It seems to Up until now, -BETA was the testing period that went up to -RELEASE. > me that the name -STABLE is confusing many people and they seem to believe > that it isn't actually stable unless it is in the -STABLE branch when this > isn't always the case. The only other suggestion is a possible change We can't be perfect. If there is instability in the -STABLE branch, please use the send-pr mechanism to report this bug, and if possible, provide a patch. -STABLE is meant explicitly for production systems, and we try to keep only stable code in that branch. -- |Chris Costello |Entropy isn't what it used to be. `---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message