From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 8 13:52:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D9016A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDCD43D36 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 31379 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2003 21:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 8 Dec 2003 21:52:02 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB8Lpwie052818; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:51:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20031208203541.02dfef08@popserver.sfu.ca> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:52:01 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Colin Percival X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.2: will standard-supfile point to RELENG_5_2? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:52:33 -0000 On 08-Dec-2003 Colin Percival wrote: > At 12:29 08/12/2003 -0800, Doug White wrote: >>Doubtful -- standard-supfile is for grabbing -current. If you want a >>specific tag, you need to specify it. I just copy the same cvsupfile >>around to different machines as I build them so I don't forget :) > > RELENG_x_y's standard-supfile has tracked RELENG_x_y for every release > branch so far except for x=5,y=1. Yes, that seems sensible. If we were going to have a permament current supfile, current-supfile would be a better name for that type of file. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/