Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:57:21 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com> To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_Richards=FC?=" <paul@freebsd-services.co.uk> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More BETA evilness Re: BETA induced nervousness Message-ID: <20010316175721.E9267@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <3AB2BC97.6CCF6F6B@freebsd-services.co.uk>; from paul@freebsd-services.co.uk on Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:23:35AM %2B0000 References: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0103161757240.26609-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> <3AB2B9F4.B772ED78@freebsd-services.co.uk> <20010316201917.G61859@ohm.physics.purdue.edu> <3AB2BC97.6CCF6F6B@freebsd-services.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 01:23:35AM +0000, Paul Richards=FC=0E wrote:
> > IMO we still need something, but it need not be called BETA, it can be
> > called PRERELEASE (which is what Kris suggested).
>=20
> Or ports fixing happens after the -release tag is laid.
So now I have to keep Yet Another FreeBSD box around to keep on the
release branch for a while? Most ports maintains, test and build their
ports on their own desktop. Thus many are tracking -STABLE; but in your
scheme either have to go off on a side branch for awhile, then return to
the -current branch. That can be a alot of effort, and I don't want to
cause port maintainers to spend effort that could be used elsewhere.
--=20
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010316175721.E9267>