Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:30:23 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: which branch? Message-ID: <4.3.2.20000317110436.00a9f580@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <00031703320100.00854@eel> References: <38D1C75D.AEC542C2@gorean.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003161449360.83199-100000@ogurok.com> <20000316122126.A90676@mushhaven.net> <38D1C75D.AEC542C2@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:20 AM 3/17/00 -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > > > This happens every version update cycle. During the 2.2.x -> 3.0 > update > > many of us asked for a new "description" of the "post new branch > > pseudo-release" branch. Something like -DEVEL, which conveys that it's > > not -CURRENT anymore, but not quite -STABLE either. It seems that > > suggestion was ignored. :) > >Right idea, but the wrong order. We should have 5-DEVEL and leave 4-CURRENT. >Or, if there is opposition to using -current both before and after the >release, >how about 4-RECENT or 4-LATEST? However, I personally prefer simply "4" >with no >add on. The "current" could still be used for the mailing list. Bleh... Just a matter of using different words that mean the same thing. > >From previous correspondence, I thought that Jordan was going to do > something >along these lines. But, as usual, it never happens when it should. Then it is >"too late". > >Speaking of mailing lists, we REALLY need an additional list. It is >unfair, and >confusing, to have no solidly distinct lists for the 3.x, 4.x and 5.x >branches. What makes it confusing. There is a distinct list for 5.x, but having 3.x and 4.x stable on the same list should help migration, IMO. Those that are migrating have no need to track and later change to a different list. The average volume of -stable is much lower than -current, so to me I read the need to separate 3.x and 4.x as a too-much-mail complaint. Most people that post problems to state which version they are running, as well as their last update. Eliminates the need for cross posting messages that would affect both -stable versions or when a "heads up" is called by a MFC. Those that maintain both 3.x and 4.x systems can post problems affecting either/or/both versions for the same reason and don't have to track 2 lists. >I would propose that we create a new list for either 4 or 5 and automatically >subscribe all "-current" subscribers to both lists. They can then "opt out" >(unsubscribe) if they are not interested in both lists. Fact of the matter is that if, when subscribing, the subscriber actually read what the list if for, then they would know which list(s) to subscribe to. Changing the names would do little for this. Using the release number might help, but then we all know that someone will be asking the where and when of the 5.x version. "Well, it was the highest number." To be fair we would need a 2-stable list. There are some that still run 2.x for various reasons and occasionally a message is posted to -stable. Yes, they are told to upgrade and with 3.x and 4.x combined the same thing can be done for those needs that are better served on 4.x, like NFS for example. Leave -current alone and should a 3-stable and 4-stable appear, they will just end up in the same folder. .02 Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.20000317110436.00a9f580>