Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:21:53 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Hetzels@aol.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <l03110701b06160122bc1@[204.69.236.50]> In-Reply-To: <971008120031_912347238@emout18.mail.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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. These names are needed only because you are insisting that they be used in place of the "2.2" style name. >> 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. OTOH, the same thing already occurs. There are quite a few of the "current" crowd who never look at "stable". They also object to questions that belong on "stable" being asked on "current" or "hackers". My making the lists more explicit, the misposting should decrease. > Plus, it forces >users to unsubscribe/resubscribe to the mailing lists (for example a user >upgrades to 2.2 from 2.1. He then needs to unsubscribes from the 2.1 mailing >list and is forced to resubscribe to 2.2.) As if he won't have to subscribe to "stable" when the development branch moves to 4.0 ... I will argue that it makes more sense for the user to subscribe to a list when he changes systems rather than when someone else releases a new system. As for the creation of a new branch and the associated mailing list, that could be handled by administratively cloning the development list. Anyone who had no interest in following both lists could unsubscribe from the list that no longer interests them. >. 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). By that argument, we should merge stable and current and have only one list. :-) I don't agree. Lists are split because their content should be different. BTW, if, today, my system says that I am running 2.1-CURRENT, which list should I use? Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110701b06160122bc1>