From owner-cvs-sys Mon Oct 27 17:19:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12595 for cvs-sys-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:19:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-sys) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12557; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:18:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (localhost.dialix.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (8.8.7/8.8.7/Spinner) with ESMTP id JAA15241; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:17:17 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <199710280117.JAA15241@spinner.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Eivind Eklund 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 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:00:12 +0100." <199710280100.CAA00480@bitbox.follo.net> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:17:16 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 Netplex Consulting