From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Oct  8 09:02:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26119
          for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable)
Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26109
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from Hetzels@aol.com)
From: Hetzels@aol.com
Received: (from root@localhost)
	  by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
	  id MAA28490;
	  Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <971008120031_912347238@emout18.mail.aol.com>
To: rkw@dataplex.net
cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: CVSup release identity
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In a message dated 97-10-08 11:26:45 EDT, rkw@dataplex.net writes:

> ># 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.

Yes, I realize that they are not sub-branches.  But newvers.sh refers to them
as branches, and I may have used the wrong term in describing them.

>  
>  I see some value in distinguishing between releases and interim patched
>  versions. However, IMHO, "-CURRENT" and "-STABLE" should be dropped.

I don't agree on dropping the names.  Keeping the names alows users to know
exactly, what they are tracking (CURRENT or STABLE).  Only, "uname -v" should
say CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE, and "uname -r" will show the release level.

>  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.

I would leave the mailing lists alone.  Why, because as users transition from
one branch to the next (2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0), the number of individuals to help
solve problems will decrease in the older mailing lists.  Plus, it forces
users to unsubscribe/resubscribe to the mailing lists (for example a user
upgrades to 2.2 form 2.1. He then needs to unsubscribes from the 2.1 mailing
list and is forced to resubscribe to 2.2.). Besides, the same questions will
be asked in multiple mailing lists, instead of just in one (stable). Also,
the development team dosen't have to track 3+ mailing lists, only 2).

>  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
>  

Scot