Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:49:44 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@nomad.dataplex.net> To: Jeremy Lea <reg@shale.csir.co.za> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: State of the union, 1999. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901110839580.39146-100000@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <19990111144906.A3187@shale.csir.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Jeremy Lea wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jan 09, 1999 at 10:47:50PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > Release numbering: > > Probably already covered, but I wanted to say that you should make a big > deal of this when it comes to people following branches. > > If people think that the 3.0->3.1 jump is the same as say the 2.1->2.2 jump, > then there will be a big demand for a larger number of -stable branches. So > you need to make them aware that there will now be one -stable branch for > each major number. > And, for this reason, I again recommend that we drop the "-stable" and "-current" designations on the branches and simply call them by their branch number. "stable", "current", and "development" could then become symbolic links to the most latest branch which has reached the status. Remember that the 3. branch cannot become stable until some time AFTER the developers quit doing major changes to it. Therefore there will be a limbo period where the cutting edge folks are working on 4.0 stuff but 3.x has not settled enough to warrant the "stable" label. IMHO, "current" would be an appropriate label for this status. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9901110839580.39146-100000>