Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:30:06 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: developers@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stable branch Message-ID: <200010051830.MAA01024@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:03:42 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> <20001004220906.D50210@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost> Brett Glass writes: : Perhaps this should be formalized as three branches: : : Branch name: Bug/security New features? "Breakable" for : fixes? a day or more? : : -PRODUCTION YES NO NO : : -STABLE YES YES, PREFERABLY NO : AFTER TESTING : IN -CURRENT : : -DEVELOPMENT YES YES YES : (formerly -CURRENT) Don't change -current's name. : What do you think of this as a model for what people seem to be : asking for? It is what people are asking for, but for which committers aren't doing. Until someone can be motivated to do 3.x stuff on a regular basis, several someones actually, it won't happen. Otherwise would do a PR spin with the following patch to 3.x would do the trick (I'd call it -solid, because -stable is suitable for production machines). Index: newvers.sh =================================================================== RCS file: /home/imp/FreeBSD/CVS/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh,v retrieving revision 1.41.2.16 diff -u -r1.41.2.16 newvers.sh --- newvers.sh 2000/06/20 16:13:59 1.41.2.16 +++ newvers.sh 2000/10/05 18:29:48 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ TYPE="FreeBSD" REVISION="3.5" -BRANCH="STABLE" +BRANCH="SOLID" RELEASE="${REVISION}-${BRANCH}" SNAPDATE="" if [ "X${SNAPDATE}" != "X" ]; then Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010051830.MAA01024>