Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:13:23 +0930 (CST) From: Kristian Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> To: dg@root.com Cc: rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <9710021643.AA24574@bragg> In-Reply-To: <199710021500.IAA20880@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Oct 2, 97 08:00:17 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The problem you're having is that the "2.2" release is actually called > 2.2.0 (that's what the tag is in the repository), so 2.2.5 is not going down. > We should perhaps make this more clear in the product literature, but I > really don't think that most people are confused over this issue. Actually, I found this very far from clear; at about the time 2.2.2 was released, I gained the ability to track the source tree via cvsup. I looked long and hard at the documentation on my system and the webpages, even searched the mail archives, but I could not find an obvious answer as to which branch to track to remain stable. It seemed to me, as others have noted, that 2.2.2 is "greater" than 2.2 from a numerical standpoint, and that hence it should be the release to track to remain stable with the source tree. I should also note that at that time the web documentation still referred to 2.1 as the stable branch, and 2.2 as current, which did not help to ease my confusion. I should HOPE this has changed by now :) It took a question or two to the mailing list to straighten me out and point me to 2.2-stable as the release to track. (I think I may have been trying to track 2.2.2-stable or something). So if my opinion counts for anything in this debate, it goes for the 2.2.5-stable branch name. :) Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9710021643.AA24574>