From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 03:58:22 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF0016A4CE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 03:58:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.200]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C1343D55 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 03:58:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so1700551rne for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:58:21 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nxN5eUM3upyMwSw2wd6NoUB8k9WtSLTLLbs2EHU55+NOvQ+wCBaLnzfujiasKhVdxOmhPfzxnEUrVbMl6hBVx5pFRS63tWaV6MQ7ga4LbIWrN12saltGNk8xhsNgd0QnKl916LR688R92w8w/lALzz1xY7C4lDm3YQfNosVEmZo= Received: by 10.38.151.33 with SMTP id y33mr4345457rnd; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:58:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.39.1.32 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:58:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0503271958205ca8e1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:58:21 +0100 From: Chris To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: freebsd naming of releases X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Chris List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 03:58:22 -0000 After what happened with 5.x releases would it be a good idea to name current releases different. eg. 6.1-dev 6.2-dev onstead of 6.1-release. here is the reasoning behind my idea. When 5.1 and 5.2 were released many datacentres and individual users were using them as if they were standard releases probably because the FreeBSD docs say that they reccomend using releases in this order starting with most stable first. RELEASE STABLE CURRENT Now of course 5.1-RELEASE had no STABLE phase so there was less testing but many users would not have known this and simply seen 5.1-RELEASE, I think this is how the mistake came about so many people were using 5.x before it was marked STABLE and the same will happen again for 6.x if the same naming convention is used. This would bring up a question such as which is more stable, 4.10-STABLE or 5.2-RELEASE since the latter is a RELEASE but the former is based on actual STABLE tree code whilst the latter is based on CURRENT tree code. I hope others can make sense of what I am saying. Please cc replies to me since im not subscribed to this list. Chris