Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:16:05 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.org> To: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd naming of releases Message-ID: <200503301016.j2UAG5pj003932@fire.jhs.private> In-Reply-To: Message from Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> <7962bb4e13837c894301545d628215f6@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Swiger wrote: > On Mar 28, 2005, at 11:44 PM, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: > >> I know that there is some explanation for the terms at the site but > >> why should terms be used which need an extra eplanation? > > > > I find that the terms "alpha", "beta" and "production" do not quite > > fit the FreeBSD development paradigm. (Is RELENG_5 beta or > > production?) > > It's beta. -CURRENT (or RELENG_6) is alpha, and production is now at Wrong: Current != Alpha. Industry common parlance of "Alpha Release" is per se a sort of (pre) release. FreeBSD Current is continuously moving & not a release; eg cvs -r HEAD Perhaps you equated Alpha & Current because that's the first one has access to from commercial companies & FreeBSD respectively, but that doesnt make them the same thing. Binaries from a commercial company's current one wouldn't normally see (let alone the source :-). - Julian Stacey Net & Sys Eng Consultant, Munich http://berklix.com Mail in Ascii (Html=Spam). Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200503301016.j2UAG5pj003932>