From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jun 1 7:43:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2BB37B416 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bmah.dyndns.org ([12.233.149.189]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020601144328.UMCA29266.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@bmah.dyndns.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 14:43:28 +0000 Received: from intruder.bmah.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by bmah.dyndns.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g51EhRfs027659; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah@intruder.bmah.org) Received: (from bmah@localhost) by intruder.bmah.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g51EhRb1027658; Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200206011443.g51EhRb1027658@intruder.bmah.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Matthias Andree Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.6-RELEASE delayed In-reply-to: <20020601113321.GC15739@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <200205311652.g4VGq5YV004136@intruder.bmah.org> <200205312119.g4VLJm7d008902@intruder.bmah.org> <20020601113321.GC15739@merlin.emma.line.org> Comments: In-reply-to Matthias Andree message dated "Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:33:21 +0200." From: "Bruce A. Mah" Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 07:43:27 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG If memory serves me right, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Holding up the release indefinitely is not really an alternative. Our > > calendar from 2002 includes the following releases and snapshots: > > 4.5-RELEASE, 5.0-DP1, 4.6-RELEASE, 5.0-DP2, 4.7-RELEASE, 5.0-RELEASE. > > Put another way, the same people trying to get 4.6-RELEASE out the door > > now are going to try to bring the 5.0-DP2 snapshot to you twenty-six > > days from today. [1] > > Yup. I'm just wondering if a bugfix would be committed to 4.6-STABLE > (that usually should only receive security fixes). I think you may be a little confused here. The 4-STABLE development branch (with the CVS tag RELENG_4) will take on various names during its lifetime, including 4.6-STABLE, 4.7-PRERELEASE, and 4.7-RC. It will eventually be the basis of 4.7. It will definitely get the bugfix, once one is created. The 4.6 release/security branch (with the CVS tag RELENG_4_6) will have version numbers of the form 4.6-RELEASE, 4.6-RELEASE-p1, 4.6-RELEASE-p2, and so forth. It normally only gets security fixes and critical system bugfixes. I think it's *way* too early to be thinking about applying an ATA tagged queueing bugfix to this branch, since the bugfix in question doesn't even exist yet. (Neither does the branch, for that matter.) Hope this helps, Bruce. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message