Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 19:01:22 -0800 From: "That Doug Guy" <tiller@connectnet.com> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <199703190302.TAA22405@smtp.connectnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Mar 97 14:42:38 -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 11:04 AM, That Doug Guy <mailto:tiller@connectnet.com> >wrote: >>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. :-) >I think this reflects a lack of understanding of the CVS process. I made that explicit in my letter, in fact you quoted me. :) >within the FreeBSD tree, there are various identifiable branches, 2.1, 2.2, >and the "head" branch being the ones of interest. Along any branch labels >can be attached; for example - 2.2-RELEASE. It is possible to retrieve the >source code by date or label and from any branch. From a practical point, >2.2-RELEASE is dead. There is a slightly newer version >of the 2.2 branch which is the active point on that branch. My system allows for retrieving (for example) 2.2.1-Release, or 2.2-Development (which if I understand you correctly is the "active point on that branch." In regards to using my system for cvs tags, in what way is it deficient? >>3.x -Experimental >> Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. > >This whole discussion started about "which mailing list to use". True, however Jordan's question was if I had carte blanche to change the tags, how would I do it. >I think the concensus is that there needs to be an additional one to separate 2.2 from 3.x. Frankly I'm still fuzzy as to why 2.2 questions can't/shouldn't go to -questions, and 3.0 questions can't/shouldn't go to -current. >Rather that use list names which change over time, I suggest that we simply >create a list for FreeBSD-2.1, a list for FreeBSD-2.2, and a third list for >the head of the development branch. Can you explain your thinking behind this? >As a system matures along the path that you have indicated, the >conversation about >it can still remain on one list for that branch because, de facto, you >cannot get any younger. The path I indicated has 2.1 dying off in 3 months, so a new list for it would not really be useful, and will eventually have to be re-directed to -questions anyway. >Further, there would clearly be one appropriate list for each branch and >that list >remains with the branch rather than the status which will come and go. With respect, I think that you are trying to tie things together that are not necessarily related. At least, my thesis here is that in order for FreeBSD to succeed, the perspective that only programmers are welcome at the table has to change. Please note that I am not accusing Richard of this, I don't know him or his views. What I'm trying to say is that the current system is confusing, and in my opinion needlessly so. The fact that once you've been around a while and have twiddled with the source tree some, it does have some vague sort of relevance is not a convincing argument for keeping it. :) Please note as well that I'm not necessarily campaigning heavily for my idea. There may very well be problems with it that I don't understand. The question was asked that if *I* was designing a system that would make sense to the average user, how would I do it. I believe the system I have outlined does a good job of making things clear to new users, while also taking into consideration the concerns that I've seen on the list(s), as I understand them anyway. blessings, Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703190302.TAA22405>