Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:30:06 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: developers@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <200010051830.MAA01024@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:03:42 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> <20001004220906.D50210@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> Brett Glass writes:
: Perhaps this should be formalized as three branches:
:
: Branch name: Bug/security New features? "Breakable" for
: fixes? a day or more?
:
: -PRODUCTION YES NO NO
:
: -STABLE YES YES, PREFERABLY NO
: AFTER TESTING
: IN -CURRENT
:
: -DEVELOPMENT YES YES YES
: (formerly -CURRENT)
Don't change -current's name.
: What do you think of this as a model for what people seem to be
: asking for?
It is what people are asking for, but for which committers aren't
doing. Until someone can be motivated to do 3.x stuff on a regular
basis, several someones actually, it won't happen.
Otherwise would do a PR spin with the following patch to 3.x would do
the trick (I'd call it -solid, because -stable is suitable for
production machines).
Index: newvers.sh
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/imp/FreeBSD/CVS/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh,v
retrieving revision 1.41.2.16
diff -u -r1.41.2.16 newvers.sh
--- newvers.sh 2000/06/20 16:13:59 1.41.2.16
+++ newvers.sh 2000/10/05 18:29:48
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
TYPE="FreeBSD"
REVISION="3.5"
-BRANCH="STABLE"
+BRANCH="SOLID"
RELEASE="${REVISION}-${BRANCH}"
SNAPDATE=""
if [ "X${SNAPDATE}" != "X" ]; then
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010051830.MAA01024>