Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 21:30:16 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@Dataplex.NET> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/3.0-19980923-BETA/ Message-ID: <l03130300b23351124203@[208.2.87.5]> In-Reply-To: <199809270033.RAA11064@hub.freebsd.org> References: <17686.906645192@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Sep 24, 98 06:53:12 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:33 PM -0500 9/26/98, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: >Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >> > cvs-30 (all commits related to 3.0 (aka -current, -beta, -stable etc) >> > cvs-22 (all commits related to 2.2.x (aka 2.2-stable etc) >> >> I'd prefer cvs-current and cvs-stable to numbered ones or we'll have >> to rename lists at the roll-over rather than simply transitioning the >> topics of discussion accordingly. > > cvs-stable and cvs-current do not exist at this time. > we currently break out the lists per the source tree > structure...and stable vs current do not have their > own source trees. > > let see if resurrecting the myriad cvs- lists we have > today doesnt solve the problem. I think you may be missing the point. If I am tracking the x.x branch, I really don't care about the changes to "current". Similarly, someone who is attempting to help beta-test the upcoming release doesn't care about the items which are still being ported back into 2.2. They only care about the changes to the system that they are attempting to run. For all practical purposes of the people who do not wish to get ALL the commit messages, it would be simpler if FreeBSD-2 and FreeBSD-3 were entirely separate cvs trees. The cry is that the commit messages be distributed as if they were. Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130300b23351124203>