Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:37:06 -0500 From: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@westbend.net> To: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE? Message-ID: <01a601c11c42$ead177a0$7d7885c0@genroco.com> References: <01080300314100.00395@spatula.home> <20010802170621.A7087@freeway.dcfinc.com> <01080301194203.00395@spatula.home> <20010802190716.A7770@freeway.dcfinc.com> <p05101001b790838a9411@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Garance A Drosihn" <drosih@rpi.edu> > At 7:07 PM -0700 8/2/01, Chad R. Larson wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 03, 2001, Andrew Boothman wrote: > > > I prefer -SECURITY, because it makes it clear this is the > > > branch dedicated to security fixes and nothing else. > > > >Yes, but then the newbies would think this was some special > >release with extra security features. And complain when they > >get rooted. We go through "why isn't -STABLE really stable" > >three or four times per year. > > > >I'd rather a tag that didn't imply some kind of promise. > > > >But I agree, it should be something other than -RELEASE. > > I agree it should change, and should not be -SECURITY or -SECURE. > In the interest of keeping it simple and yet nondescript, I would > prefer something like -RELEASE+ or -RELEASE-PLUS > How about naming the RELENG_X_Y branches -SQUASH? It's still a vegetable, and is descriptive that this branch squashes bugs. Scot To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01a601c11c42$ead177a0$7d7885c0>