Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:07:57 +0200 From: "Luchesar V. ILIEV" <luchesar.iliev@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current Message-ID: <4EBD728D.3040206@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOgwaMuaddUjtXY_9%2B71H-876S%2B4oJfkOaOAZQS0fjSsycSxoQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOgwaMv=wUb11AYwJ_RN1x1p0DGtZb6pJ4cb8R6v0ySYiNTjRw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1111111226010.882@multics.mit.edu> <CAOgwaMuaddUjtXY_9%2B71H-876S%2B4oJfkOaOAZQS0fjSsycSxoQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: >> >> Dear all , >>> >>> Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version >>> number , >>> is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current >>> when it is branched . >>> >>> Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . >>> >>> >>> For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest , >>> therefore the current one . >>> >>> The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number , >>> such as used by Debian . >>> >>> >>> For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was >>> >>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ >>> >>> >>> which is NOT available now , and >>> >>> >>> pkg_add -r * >>> >>> is giving error about directory not found . >>> >>> >>> This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . >>> >>> >>> I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but >>> everyone is not so much knowledgeable . >>> >> >> I'm not sure I understand your proposal. >> In a month (er, two. well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you >> propose that the svn HEAD be called: >> (a) 10.0 >> (b) 9-CURRENT >> (c) CURRENT >> (d) something else >> >> I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the >> version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made. >> Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a >> form of '9'. >> >> -Ben Kaduk >> > > > > > > During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/ > > During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used . > > Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed . > > This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 . > > When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them > has changed . > > This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories > over all ftp , and other sites . > > This is a wasted effort . > > Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following > may be used : > > > Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current . > > Assume our main directory is the following : > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ > > As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current . > > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/ > > All of the directories , for example , > ... ports > ... release > ... snapshot > ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 , > in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example , > 9.0 will exist ... > > For example : > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/ > > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/ > ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/ > > > > > .... > > > > Explain to the people that 9.0 is the "Development" branch , > NOT for production use . > > A single sentence to learn . > > Another step may be to insert an explicit > warning message into current motd file about "Development" status of 9.0 . > > > When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development > branch will be generated , > > take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 . > > By using suitable find/replace scripts , > > find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 . > > > After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors . > > Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 , > and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch , > all over the world .... > > > Then start to work on 10.0 ... > Continue in that way . > > Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 : > > Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ... > > > Thank you very much . > > Mehmet Erol Sanliturk > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Why do I have the feeling that this whole problem is simply a matter of r225757 not being MFC-ed to stable/9? http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/main.c?r1=222035&r2=225757 Cheers, Luchesar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EBD728D.3040206>