Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 18:39:46 +0900 From: Takashi Shimizu <qqyr7xx9k@shirt.ocn.ne.jp> To: Tuomo Latto <djv@iki.fi>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Improve BE naming convention in freebsd-update install Message-ID: <94bab460-4562-46d9-8651-84d5005c41bc@shirt.ocn.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <35C0A0DA-DEE3-49DD-81E3-E71E56190A3A@iki.fi> References: <70da0c5b-c865-44e9-8c19-abb1cd779efe@shirt.ocn.ne.jp> <BL4PR11MB88249FD96B59C106E57DAD26E60A2@BL4PR11MB8824.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <cfc338d2-16cd-4316-879d-092674d248c1@shirt.ocn.ne.jp> <35C0A0DA-DEE3-49DD-81E3-E71E56190A3A@iki.fi>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 5/25/26 18:14, Tuomo Latto wrote:
> As someone who does not use BEs and doesn't know very much about them,
> I have some thoughts. So, take them for what they're worth.
>
> HEAD is not a good name because you have to explain it. It also has traditionally
> referred to sources and I don't think introducing it somewhere else is a good idea,
> because that usage is distinct enough to cause confusion, especially since the other
> suggested names refer to source versions.
>
> If the idea is that it is the latest update and that we generally boot that latest version
> except in some specific circumstances, the word "default" does rather come to mind.
> Of course, that word by itself is not very descriptive beyond that.
> Therefore, it would make sense to use "<Freebsd version description> (default)" instead,
> where the version would be as you describe. You could even suggest version naming
> conventions for manual usage such as "15-STABLE_<source timestamp>" or something.
>
> Using " (default)" would mean you'd have to update the names so that it only exists
> in one of them, which isn't that different from "HEAD". Although, if there actually is
> a separate mechanism for a boot default, even if it's just picking the one that was used
> the last time, that word simply won't do as you could have a different boot default
> from the one named "default" and always moving that tag around would defeat the purpose
> of having it.
>
> Instead, you could do " (latest)" but, if you run forks or several branches, that word
> could either be confusing OR a very good choice, because then each branch could have
> that tag to represent their "head". In that case, you'd only remove it from the name,
> if the version you were updating from had that tag and you were using the same
> version/branch name, so to speak. You'd (almost) always add it.
>
> The first install being simply called "original" is almost as bad as calling the "HEAD"
> simply "default". It would make more sense to have the version description there too.
> I could see other words being used as tags there too, such as "initial" and "first", perhaps
> maybe "original install", "initial install", and so on. The exact choice doesn't matter as
> long as it is something you don't have think about at all in order to understand, which
> is why that second word might be a useful addition.
>
> So, I might be misunderstanding something here but maybe you could have
> a pathological, likely non-realistic, example like the following, sorted by newest to oldest,
> which may not be the best choice here, where someone would have started from
> a release install, tracked 14-stable, went with 14.0 patchlevels for a while, upgraded to 14.1,
> then went back to tracking 14-stable, and then upgrading to 15.0 release and also tracking
> 16-CURRENT simultaneously.
> They'd have several concurrent versions installed, which may or may not make sense.
> It would be messy to do this, I guess, but, importantly, the list is still somewhat legible
> and there's some sense of what is what and the "head" of each branch is marked:
> "16-CURRENT_<ts3> (latest)"
> "16-CURRENT_<ts2>"
> "15.0-RELEASE-p8 (latest)"
> "15.0-RELEASE-p7"
> "16-CURRENT_<ts1>"
> "15.0-RELEASE-p6"
> "14-STABLE_<ts9> (latest)"
> "14-STABLE_<ts8>"
> "14-STABLE_<ts7>"
> "14-STABLE_<ts6> xxbug test patch 2"
> "14-STABLE_<ts5> xxbug test patch 1"
> "14-STABLE_<ts4>"
> "14-STABLE_<ts3>"
> "14.1-RELEASE-p1 (latest)"
> "14.1-RELEASE"
> "14.0-RELEASE-p6 (latest)"
> "14-STABLE_<ts2>"
> "14-STABLE_<ts1>"
> "14.0-RELEASE (initial install)"
>
> You might not want to do this naming by hand but, if all the tools (overridably)
> standardised the format, you could also create the facility (switches, UI fields)
> to easily add some descriptions ("xxbug [...]") in names for e.g. testing purposes.
>
> So, for what it's worth.
>
Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion.
I agree that "(latest)" is more self-explanatory than "HEAD" and I am
happy to adopt that.
However, I would like to keep the scope simple. Managing multiple
concurrent branches is something only experienced users would do, and
they are capable of managing their own BE names. Introducing logic to
handle multiple "(latest)" tags across branches would add complexity and
potential bugs to freebsd-update.
My proposal is therefore limited to the simple case: freebsd-update
marks only the BE it last updated as "(latest)". Nothing more.
I also like "initial install" as a tag for the first BE. It is
immediately understandable without any explanation.
Takashi
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/25/26 18:14, Tuomo Latto wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:35C0A0DA-DEE3-49DD-81E3-E71E56190A3A@iki.fi">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
As someone who does not use BEs and doesn't know very much about them,
I have some thoughts. So, take them for what they're worth.
HEAD is not a good name because you have to explain it. It also has traditionally
referred to sources and I don't think introducing it somewhere else is a good idea,
because that usage is distinct enough to cause confusion, especially since the other
suggested names refer to source versions.
If the idea is that it is the latest update and that we generally boot that latest version
except in some specific circumstances, the word "default" does rather come to mind.
Of course, that word by itself is not very descriptive beyond that.
Therefore, it would make sense to use "<Freebsd version description> (default)" instead,
where the version would be as you describe. You could even suggest version naming
conventions for manual usage such as "15-STABLE_<source timestamp>" or something.
Using " (default)" would mean you'd have to update the names so that it only exists
in one of them, which isn't that different from "HEAD". Although, if there actually is
a separate mechanism for a boot default, even if it's just picking the one that was used
the last time, that word simply won't do as you could have a different boot default
from the one named "default" and always moving that tag around would defeat the purpose
of having it.
Instead, you could do " (latest)" but, if you run forks or several branches, that word
could either be confusing OR a very good choice, because then each branch could have
that tag to represent their "head". In that case, you'd only remove it from the name,
if the version you were updating from had that tag and you were using the same
version/branch name, so to speak. You'd (almost) always add it.
The first install being simply called "original" is almost as bad as calling the "HEAD"
simply "default". It would make more sense to have the version description there too.
I could see other words being used as tags there too, such as "initial" and "first", perhaps
maybe "original install", "initial install", and so on. The exact choice doesn't matter as
long as it is something you don't have think about at all in order to understand, which
is why that second word might be a useful addition.
So, I might be misunderstanding something here but maybe you could have
a pathological, likely non-realistic, example like the following, sorted by newest to oldest,
which may not be the best choice here, where someone would have started from
a release install, tracked 14-stable, went with 14.0 patchlevels for a while, upgraded to 14.1,
then went back to tracking 14-stable, and then upgrading to 15.0 release and also tracking
16-CURRENT simultaneously.
They'd have several concurrent versions installed, which may or may not make sense.
It would be messy to do this, I guess, but, importantly, the list is still somewhat legible
and there's some sense of what is what and the "head" of each branch is marked:
"16-CURRENT_<ts3> (latest)"
"16-CURRENT_<ts2>"
"15.0-RELEASE-p8 (latest)"
"15.0-RELEASE-p7"
"16-CURRENT_<ts1>"
"15.0-RELEASE-p6"
"14-STABLE_<ts9> (latest)"
"14-STABLE_<ts8>"
"14-STABLE_<ts7>"
"14-STABLE_<ts6> xxbug test patch 2"
"14-STABLE_<ts5> xxbug test patch 1"
"14-STABLE_<ts4>"
"14-STABLE_<ts3>"
"14.1-RELEASE-p1 (latest)"
"14.1-RELEASE"
"14.0-RELEASE-p6 (latest)"
"14-STABLE_<ts2>"
"14-STABLE_<ts1>"
"14.0-RELEASE (initial install)"
You might not want to do this naming by hand but, if all the tools (overridably)
standardised the format, you could also create the facility (switches, UI fields)
to easily add some descriptions ("xxbug [...]") in names for e.g. testing purposes.
So, for what it's worth.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">Thank
you for the thoughtful suggestion.</p>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">I
agree that "(latest)" is more self-explanatory than "HEAD" and I
am happy to adopt that.</p>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">However,
I would like to keep the scope simple. Managing multiple
concurrent branches is something only experienced users would do,
and they are capable of managing their own BE names. Introducing
logic to handle multiple "(latest)" tags across branches would add
complexity and potential bugs to freebsd-update.</p>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">My
proposal is therefore limited to the simple case: freebsd-update
marks only the BE it last updated as "(latest)". Nothing more.</p>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">I
also like "initial install" as a tag for the first BE. It is
immediately understandable without any explanation.</p>
<p
class="font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal leading-[1.7]">Takashi</p>
</body>
</html>
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?94bab460-4562-46d9-8651-84d5005c41bc>