From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Aug 16 14:09:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA18258 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (EEL.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA18245 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 14:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [199.183.109.242] (cod [199.183.109.242]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA02823; Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:09:11 -0500 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:09:11 -0500 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Sup-ing stable Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Rodney Grimes writes: >I think there is enough confusion out there that the strings should be >changed to this: >TYPE="FreeBSD" >REVISION="2.1.5" >BRANCH="STABLE" Well, that is your opinion. My opinion is slightly different. Here is my interpretation of the way things should be... "Stable", and for that matter "current", do not really designate development branches. I feel that they are simply aliases that reflect the state of development. Using both "2.1.5" and "STABLE" is redundant. I think that "2.1" is the proper name of the branch. We are awaiting the CD for revision "RELEASE-5" Those who have gotten today's update are at revision "CTM-154" However, to help avoid confusion among the uninitiated, perhaps we should call today's version "FreeBSD 2.1.5-154","FreeBSD 2.1.5p154", or something similar.