From owner-cvs-sys Mon Oct 27 17:21:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12835 for cvs-sys-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:21:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-sys) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12823; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:21:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA04208; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:21:34 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id CAA00480; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:00:12 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:00:12 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199710280100.CAA00480@bitbox.follo.net> From: Eivind Eklund To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) CC: peter@netplex.com.au, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: asami@cs.berkeley.edu's message of Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:01:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf newvers.sh References: <199710261412.WAA09524@spinner.netplex.com.au> <199710271101.DAA01982@bubble.didi.com> Sender: owner-cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > * 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? > * 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... :-] (can > * 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? Eivind.