From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 8 19:32:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6768316A4D3 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 286D643D13 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:32:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 78041 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Dec 2003 03:32:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 2003 03:32:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3FD54219.4040906@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:31:37 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031103 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu References: <3FD3AA5D.8010409@alumni.rice.edu> <20031208122821.C15361@carver.gumbysoft.com> <3FD4E889.7080703@alumni.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <3FD4E889.7080703@alumni.rice.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: re@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.2: will standard-supfile point to RELENG_5_2? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:32:58 -0000 Jon Noack wrote: > On 12/8/2003 2:29 PM, Doug White wrote: > >> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Jon Noack wrote: >> >> >>> I ask this for 5.2 because it never happened for 5.1: >>> Will src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile be updated to point to >>> the "RELENG_5_2" tag instead of "." for 5.2? >> >> >> >> Doubtful -- standard-supfile is for grabbing -current. If you want a >> specific tag, you need to specify it. I just copy the same cvsupfile >> around to different machines as I build them so I don't forget :) >> >> I agree that stable-supfile should be updated, though. But 5.X isn't >> -stable yet. :) > > > Copying re@ on this... > > I respectfully disagree. Here's an open bug report from someone else > who thinks the same way I do: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/53197 > > Even if you disagree with me, check out the CVS commits to > standard-supfile: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile > > > A very common entry is something to the effect of: > "The 'standard-supfile' should track its own branch." > > (As Colin Percival just point out:) > From the inception of the security release branch with RELENG_4_3, > every release *but* 5.1 has had standard-supfile point to the security > release branch. That's 8 releases in my favor vs. 1 release in your > favor. I win ;-). > > I'd wager a lot of folks used to 4.x giving 5.x a try would get bitten > by this, accidentally upgrading to -CURRENT and possibly hosing their > systems as a result. > > In any case, the only color for the shed is midnight blue. > Jon > > There was discussion about this after 5.1 too. Basically, we need to create another cvsup example file, one for RELENG_4, one for RELENG_5_x, and one for HEAD. Does this lead us down the road to having even more example files? What about one for RELENG_4_9? I guess I'm not opposed to this. If someone will submit a patch, I'll consider it. Scott