Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 18:19:47 +1000 (EST) From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> To: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... Message-ID: <199704070825.BAA00802@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970407172653.10264J-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> from "Daniel O'Callaghan" at Apr 7, 97 05:36:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In some mail from Daniel O'Callaghan, sie said: > > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Darren Reed wrote: > > > it begs the question: if we're changing 2.2 after 2.2-RELEASE is made, > > what does 2.2-RELEASE mean if my 2.2-RELEASE is different to yours ? > > > > Does-RELEASE have any meaning any more ? > > > > Should all FreeBSD just be a series of SNAPSHOTs ? > > My feeling is that a RELEASE should be immutable, but a differences > binary package should be produced as an update pack. This would save > people from having to download 90 MB or more for each upgrade. I have > produced a 2.2->2.2.1 binary upgrade package which is 7 MB - much more > palatable for people to download. Right. IMHO this is what FreeBSD should be doing 'officially', only source (maybe diffs) as well as binaries. Darren
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704070825.BAA00802>