Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 09:33:27 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Subject: Re: closing bin/295 Message-ID: <199504090733.JAA05262@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <v02120b07abacb819a8f1@[199.183.109.242]> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Apr 8, 95 05:12:24 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > >> Agree. However, that points up a "problem" with the whole "SNAP-Release" > >> system. Perhaps we need to have some way of tracking just what version of > >> things is in that "release" eg: In the source files, we could/should > >> include the .ctm_status files that reflect the updates that had been > >> applied. > > > > >It's not actually related to CTM, so this is not free of potential > >raises. > ... With the advent of CTM, > I think it reasonable to use those numbers as the identification of interim > builds of -current. The problem is that the SNAP releases are cvs co'd separately. So they are not related to any particular CTM level, since CTM does its own cvs update (i think 4 times per day or so). The correct way is to first tag the tree and then cvs co it based on this tag instead of the ``current'' state. This is done for regular releases, but is unacceptable for SNAPs (due to the huge amount of sup and ctm traffic the tagging would cause). -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504090733.JAA05262>