Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:36:36 -0400 From: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Yet again changing branch names? (Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE?) Message-ID: <3B6AE124.5080501@lmc.ericsson.se> References: <01080300314100.00395@spatula.home> <20010802170621.A7087@freeway.dcfinc.com> <01080301194203.00395@spatula.home> <20010802190716.A7770@freeway.dcfinc.com> <p05101001b790838a9411@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 7:07 PM -0700 8/2/01, Chad R. Larson wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001, Andrew Boothman wrote: >> > I prefer -SECURITY, because it makes it clear this is the >> > branch dedicated to security fixes and nothing else. >> >> Yes, but then the newbies would think this was some special >> release with extra security features. And complain when they >> get rooted. We go through "why isn't -STABLE really stable" >> three or four times per year. ?? s/year/month/ ! >> I'd rather a tag that didn't imply some kind of promise. >> >> But I agree, it should be something other than -RELEASE. > > I agree it should change, and should not be -SECURITY or -SECURE. > In the interest of keeping it simple and yet nondescript, I would > prefer something like -RELEASE+ or -RELEASE-PLUS > > While something like BEET or RUTABAGA is also nondescript, I think > that's a little too silly for this branch. I know several sysadmin's > who have been very happy to have this branch around. I could see > changing the *stable* branch to a name like beet, rutabaga, or maybe > rawcarrot (which is then "cooked" for release... :-). Maybe that > would finally get rid of the confusion of people who read too much > into the name "stable". Yah. -stable is really great, but it's gotta go. We have to *force* people to read the doc. It's the bottom line. When I discovered Debian, I heard of Potato, Slinky and stuff like that. I had no clue of what the heck they were talking about. I read. I learned. :) > For that matter, perhaps we should name the "security-fixes" branch > as -stable, and then change the branch we currently call stable to > be -kitchen, and change -current to be -frontier or -scarymovie. hmm... Here's what I think: 1. The security breanch could just be named what it is: -SECURITY_FIXES or -SECFIX. 2. "-stable" gotta go. Any fruit, household item, room, whatever name will fit. The problem we'll find is with the doc and the infrastructure (this list) that we can't change to follow changing names. 3. "-current" should also be renamed. "Evil dark overlord planning to take over the earth" could be a better name (but it might attract too much people). I suggest "-crap". That'll keep wanderers away. :) Not that we don't want people to use -current, we don't want people to use -current without knowing what they're doing. 4. And how about naming our releases? I know there are a lot of them (3/4 a year), but I like the idea of dedicating releases or naming them to funny names. :) > [really, any naming scheme is fine by me personally. I'd just like > to see if we could come up with something so we didn't have to debate > some branch-name every three or four months. So, I hope that by > tossing several disparate ideas out, maybe something will make sense. > Note: 'disparate', not 'desperate' :-) ] Here too. I could stay just like that. But I can't bear the freaking noise of having this thing over and over again. -- Antoine Beaupré Jambala TCM team Ericsson Canada inc. mailto:antoine.beaupre@ericsson.ca 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?3B6AE124.5080501>