Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:59:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Jon Noack" <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: "Rob" <spamrefuse@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: names of supfiles in /usr/share/examples/cvsup Message-ID: <8783.69.53.57.66.1102359584.squirrel@69.53.57.66> In-Reply-To: <41B40C97.7000102@yahoo.com> References: <41B40C97.7000102@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rob wrote: > For 5.3 in /usr/share/examples/cvsup, there's: > > stable-supfile : for FreeBSD-stable > standard-supfile : for FreeBSD-current > > I find this naming rather confusing. Why "stable" refers to STABLE, but > "standard" refers to CURRENT ? Actually, this is not correct. For 5.3-RELEASE and RELENG_5_3, standard-supfile points to RELENG_5_3. For RELENG_5, standard-supfile points to RELENG_5 (despite the incorrect comment at the top saying it gets you -CURRENT -- look at the actual CVS tag used). For -CURRENT, standard-supfile points to "." (HEAD). Thus, standard-supfile keeps you on the branch you are using. I like that the "standard" is to keep you on the branch you are using. This makes sense to me. I think adding a current-supfile would reduce confusion (seems like it's the time of year to discuss this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-December/016071.html). However, the biggest problem is definitely the incorrect comment in standard-supfile... Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8783.69.53.57.66.1102359584.squirrel>