Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 09:04:38 -0800 From: "That Doug Guy" <tiller@connectnet.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <199703181705.JAA25152@smtp.connectnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:28 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. Bah, defecation occurs. :-) And it hasn't been a *big* problem, but one that should be addressed as the product matures. [snip] > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? No. As someone pointed out, the people who need to know are either here (on the lists) already, or could easily reached with a prominent www page. Also, assuming that FreeBSD has a long, healthy life, making the change now flattens the learning curve over time (assuming that a change is needed, and I believe it is). > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development I think that perhaps the wrong approach is being considered. First of all, if there is any renaming to be done, the -current tag has to be discarded. When I first started learning about FreeBSD, it seemed to me that -current would be the branch I wanted to use because it was the most up to date. I found out later that -current really *means* experimental. Here is what I would like to see, with the caveat that I have absolutely no idea how it would look in a CVS tree. :-) For the next three months: 2.1.x -Stable Keep this branch as up to date as possible with security and major bug fixes, but put a warning in the readme's that plans should be made to upgrade to 2.2. 2.2.x -Release Always the last one that went out the door, maintaining the same quality standards we have for -Release versions now, but not guaranteed stable. 2.2.x -Development The latest and greatest 2.2 code. Run at your own risk, but probably safe. 3.x -Experimental Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. Assuming that 2.2 proves itself, in three months this migrates to: 2.1.x -Frozen So long, thanks for the memories, but this code is no longer being developed, and will go away in 3 months. (So 6 months from the date the naming scheme goes into effect, no more 2.1 branch.) 2.2.x -Stable Maintains the quality standards we have for -Stable now, with some structure in place to see that security and major bug fixes are backported. 2.2.x -Release and -Development, same as above. 3.x -Experimental (also same as above). This minimized the time period that people have to spend trying to support 3 trees (the argument about volunteers spreading their own precious time thinly is well taken) to a reasonable period, and gives 2.2 the agreed upon time to prove itself. Hope this helps, Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703181705.JAA25152>