Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:41:42 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better Message-ID: <a06001a0bbb81d25b67db@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <4k7k4kjbpz.k4k@mail.comcast.net> References: <3F5B4AA9.1000003@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4k7k4kjbpz.k4k@mail.comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:44 PM -0700 2003/09/07, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > ALPHA -- Name of the HEAD branch (trunk?). > (Was: CURRENT.) > #-ALPHA -- Synonym of ALPHA. > (Was: #-CURRENT.) > (Non-existent after HEAD moves on to #+1.) I don't really have any problem with renaming CURRENT to ALPHA. > BETA -- Ambiguous synonym of #-BETA, but useful in context. > (Was: STABLE.) > #-BETA -- Name of the RELENG_# branch. > (Was: #-STABLE.) > (Non-existent until #.#-STABLE is created.) > (Example: 4-BETA = RELENG_4) No, not correct. Problem is that bugs are sometimes caught up in a -RELEASE, which actually won't run or even install on certain types of systems. There's a reason STABLE is called that -- it's almost always better than the most recent RELEASE for the same line, since it is basically just that same RELEASE plus bug fixes. There are times when this is not true (mostly when some new feature has been recently MFC'ed, or when a -RELEASE has been cut for CURRENT), but this is true far more often than not. We should either stick with STABLE as the name for this, or find something better than BETA. > #.#-BETA -- Name of the RELENG_#_# branch, when beta quality. > (Uncommon. Example: 5.1-BETA = RELENG_5_1) > #.#-STABLE -- Name of the RELENG_#_# branch, when stable quality. > (Common. Example: 4.8-STABLE = RELENG_4_8) Therein likes the problem. There is no distinction between "beta" or "stable" quality in the system today, and it would take a massive change in the entire release engineering process before you could do that. Like, basically throw out all history of how work has ever been done (and the people who've done all that work), and start over from zero. Moreover, since there are usually extreme generational changes between major versions, what is really needed is a split between development and operational versions, and then a further break down of alpha/beta/stable branches at least for the operational version. Snapshots would be taken of operational+stable at appropriate times and then turned into official RELEASE versions. > P.S. For an example of confusing names, one need go no further than > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap/schedule.html > which suggests a series of branches like this: > Sept 1, 2003: 5.2-BETA, general code freeze > Sept 15, 2003: 5.2-RC1, RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_2 branched > Sept 22, 2003: 5.2-RC2 > Sept 29, 2003: 5.2-RELEASE You are confusing the CVS tags RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_2 with the human-visible terms such as 5.2-RC1, 5.2-RC2, etc.... -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a06001a0bbb81d25b67db>