Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:45:55 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, 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: <19971028024555.02102@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199710280117.JAA15241@spinner.netplex.com.au>; from Peter Wemm on Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 09:17:16AM %2B0800 References: <199710280100.CAA00480@bitbox.follo.net> <199710280117.JAA15241@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 28, 1997 at 09:17:16AM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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: [Imaginative sequence deleted] This sequence and the statement before it are just plain wrong, unless the CVS-tree has been damaged or I'm going crazy[1]. As far as the cvs tree tells, what you say about -STABLE was correct for 2.1, but 2.2 was called 2.2-RELEASE until it was renamed to 2.2-GAMMA, then to the correct name for the release, and then it became 2.2-STABLE. Like I noted just above the point you started disputing it. To give the exact references for 2.2: 1.26 Oct 11, 1996: RELENG_2_2_BP 2.2-CURRENT 1.26.2.4 Nov 15, 1996: 2.2-CURRENT -> 2.2-RELEASE 1.26.2.6 Jan 31, 1997: 2.2-RELEASE -> 2.2-GAMMA 1.26.2.8 Mar 15, 1997: RELENG_2_2_0_RELEASE 2.2-GAMMA -> 2.2-RELEASE The commits not included in the list do not change the BRANCH= line. Eivind. [1] If I'm going crazy, I'm going to need you all as witnesses - it'd let me avoid being sent into slave labour (AKA conscription) ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971028024555.02102>