From owner-cvs-all Thu Oct 5 10: 4:10 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204BF37B503; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15026; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:03:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:03:42 -0600 To: Ralph Huntington , "David O'Brien" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Stable branch Cc: Paul Richards , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <20001004220906.D50210@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 04:06 AM 10/5/2000, Ralph Huntington wrote: >Stable branch is very important for production use and should incorporate >bug fixes and security patches, but not feature enhancements. The extent >of support and maintenance for stable should be one major release prior to >the latest release (not current), i.e., since 4.x-RELEASE is the latest, >then 3.x-STABLE hould be supported with bug fixes and security patches >until a 5.x-RELEASE is out. > >Does this seem unreasonable? -=r=- 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) What do you think of this as a model for what people seem to be asking for? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message