From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jun 12 22:22:02 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA04628 for current-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:22:02 -0700 Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA04577 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:21:53 -0700 Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA04852 for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:21:56 -0700 From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199506130521.WAA04852@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re: CVS and FreeBSD 2.0.5/2.1/2.2 To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:21:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199506130406.GAA06378@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 13, 95 06:06:44 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2242 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > As Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > [2.1-stable] > > > Not ``random internet users'', there have been many requests for > > something between RELEASE and CURRENT. Stable will be basically > > the last release + critical bug fixes. 2.1 is going to be 2.0.5R > > + what ever CRITICAL bug fixes David gets done between now and > > when he says it is done. > > Does this mean that we should pass any and all 2.1 bug fixed through > David (or someone else), or are we allowed to performa ``obvious'' > fixes ourselves until a final XXX-freeze date is reached? Others are *not* to commit anything to the 2.1 branch, see mail in my commit message, and the mail I have sent to the list. I can tell from the question you did not really read my mail on this subject or this would have been clear. Others are working on FreeBSD 2.2 now, you should make all commits there. If we (the release engineering team) sees a commit for what we feel is a critical enough situation that it should be fixed in 2.1 we (the release team) will pull those changes into the branch with a cvs update -j operation, or a commit of the changes in appropriate form if they don't just drop right in. > I don't think of trying to break the 2.1 tree, but i'm afraid it will > be too much work for the `who' who has to approve all fixes. It is too much work fixing the bugs if we don't review them before they go into the release branch. 2.0.5 is looking pretty good, and there is not that much to be fixed in it before 2.1 rolls. David and myself still want to try for an end of July 2.1 Alpha release to start the test cycle (or I think that was the date David has been througing around). This means we have 6 weeks to fix the bugs before we go to critical mode only. > Perhaps this is also time to add a Branch: field to our commit logs. Working on it.. cvs does that normally, something in our perl stuff is stripping it out. And I am not a very good perl hack, but will get it fixed in the next day or two, but first I need to get the new sup stuff up and going (tree is checking out right now). -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD