From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 11 06:35:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BAB1065672 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:35:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mueller23@insightbb.com) Received: from mail.insightbb.com (smtp1.insight.synacor.com [208.47.185.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4F28FC15 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:35:21 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined X-CNFS-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=MrqQvws7dyPMukFlhemGyJ7m3hgj01S26zN05OzRz48= c=1 sm=0 a=f4iCGHsY0t4A:10 a=jLN7EqiLvroA:10 a=CR6AKAaqq6ce4B0fhQQA:9 a=Q/oqmR4JO1zR3vNQamCQeQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com header.from=mueller23@insightbb.com; sender-id=softfail Authentication-Results: smtp01.insight.synacor.com smtp.mail=mueller23@insightbb.com; spf=softfail; sender-id=softfail Received-SPF: softfail (smtp01.insight.synacor.com: transitional domain insightbb.com does not designate 74.134.26.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.134.26.53] ([74.134.26.53:35185] helo=localhost) by mail.insightbb.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.40 r(29895/29896)) with ESMTP id 91/59-10780-1AE1DFF4; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:35:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:35:13 -0400 Message-ID: <91.59.10780.1AE1DFF4@smtp01.insight.synacor.com> From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: Ken Smith Subject: Re: WARNING: stable/9 -> 9.1-BETA1... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:35:22 -0000 from Ken Smith : > Through time we learned to try and avoid ever having a "stable branch" > call itself BETA-anything. The reality is during every release the BETA > builds do get built from what's in the stable branch (we typically don't > create the releng/* branches until we hit the RC phase). But past > experiences have shown us that not everybody knows that, and/or aren't > paying attention to the fact a release is under way. And sorry to be so > blunt but... Some people really freak out when they see BETA in > anything. So, despite stable branches actually being what BETA builds > get built from in the past we've avoided having BETA appear in the > source code repositories. Instead we have named it PRERELEASE, and used > a "build knob" to have the release build call itself the BETA. > The new build infrastructure that got phased in as part of 9.0 doesn't > have that build knob. So, I'm about to do what we've tried to avoid > before which is do a commit that makes stable/9 call itself 9.1-BETA1. > After we complete the BETA1 builds (likely 2 to 3 days for all of them > to complete) I'll shift stable/9 to PRERELEASE and it should stay that > way until the release process is over (the next scheduled build is RC1 > and we'll create releng/9.1 as part of doing that...). I'm on RELENG_9, and just to know what path I will be on with this csup supfile tag, will this go to the 9.1 betas, then 9.1 PRERELEASE up to 9.1-RELEASE, then 9.1-STABLE? I suppose RELENG_9_1 will be patches and security updates to 9.1-RELEASE? Tom