Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:17:16 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), peter@netplex.com.au, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf newvers.sh Message-ID: <199710280117.JAA15241@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:00:12 %2B0100." <199710280100.CAA00480@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >
> > * 3.0-CURRENT won't exist beyond 3.0-RELEASE.. At some point I assume the
> > * tree will branch, RELENG_3_0 will become 3.0-STABLE (on which
> > * 3.0[.*]-RELEASE will happen), and HEAD will become 3.1-CURRENT or
> > * something. So, there won't be a 3.0-CURRENT after 3.0-STABLE begins.
> >
> > I don't think so. I don't think DavidG will agree with that either. :)
>
> This is what I see happening, in which I can't see a problem (unless
> we're planning to keep calling ourselves 3.0 current after we have a
> RELENG_3_0 branch):
>
> Development continues as of today
> current == 3.0-CURRENT
> RELENG_3_0 and RELENG_3_0_BP tags are laid down
> current -> 3.1-CURRENT
> RELENG_3_0 -> 3.0-RELENG
> 3.0 goes into alpha/beta/gamme testing
> RELENG_3_0 -> 3.0-ALPHA/BETA/GAMMA
> 3.0 is released
> RELENG_3_0 -> 3.0-RELEASE (briefly) or possibly 3.0.0-RELEASE
> post 3.0 release
> RELENG_3_0 -> 3.0-STABLE (or 3.0.0-STABLE)
>
> This matches what we've done with 2.2, at least (except for the
> -RELENG part, as we've been calling it 2.2-RELEASE all the time before
> -GAMMA, as far as I can see from the CVS logs).
>
> Is there something major I'm missing here?
What you called -RELENG was called -STABLE in all past lives. ie: for 2.2
, the sequence was this:
current == 2.2-CURRENT
RELENG_2_2 and RELENG_2_2_BP laid down
current -> 3.0-CURRENT
RELENG_2_2 -> 2.2-STABLE
2.2-stable has a couple of months of cleanup
2.2.0-RELEASE, 2.2.1-RELEASE happen on RELENG_2_2 branch. (2.2.0 was
terminated from memory :-)
2.2-STABLE remained the name for RELENG_2_2
2.2.2-RELEASE happens
2.2-STABLE remained the name for RELENG_2_2
2.2.5-RELEASE happens
RELENG_2_2 renamed to 2.2.5-STABLE just to be different.
> > * So, how do we tell the difference between 3.0-STABLE before and after
> > * 3.0-RELEASE? Damn good question, unless it becomes 3.0.0-STABLE or
> > * 3.0.1-STABLE depending on how many aborted releases there are... :-] (c
an
> > * you say 2.2.1? :-)
> >
> > As you say yourself above, this is just moving the problem from one
> > place to another.
>
> It has never been -stable until there has been a release - any reason
> to start calling it that now?
No, it has always been -stable before the release happened. We had
2.2-current as the bleeding-edge, and 2.2-stable was branched to
differentiate that from the older 2.2-current systems.
> Eivind.
>
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Netplex Consulting
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710280117.JAA15241>