Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:26:38 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@aol.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <l03110700b061515db67d@[204.69.236.50]> In-Reply-To: <01bcd3f4$a0e6ea20$LocalHost@hetzels>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
># uname -r > >2.2.2 (199710081259) > ># uname -v > >FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE ... > >According to the man page "uname -r" gives the Release Level, while >"uname -v" shows the version, along with other information. "uname -v" >could also indicate the development branch (CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE) for >the source. Please realize that "CURRENT", "RELEASE", and "STABLE" are NOT different sub-branches. The branches are 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. Each "-RELEASE" indicates a particular waypoint on its branch. "-CURRENT" and "-STABLE" are just a description of the intended status. I see some value in distinguishing between releases and interim patched versions. However, IMHO, "-CURRENT" and "-STABLE" should be dropped. All references to a particular branch need to be in terms of its invariant name, eg "2.2". Further, I would phase out the "stable" and "current" mailing lists in favor of lists designated by the particular branch's numeric name. That way, the purpose of a list would not need to change as development progresses. The transition can be handled by cloning existing mailing lists and using mail aliases to allow the deprecated names to continue to function as expected. Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110700b061515db67d>