From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Aug 4 16:18:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8EE37B401 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:18:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrew@cream.org) Received: from spatula.home ([62.31.80.67]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:17:48 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Andrew Boothman To: "Chad R. Larson" Subject: Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:17:42 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Bill Moran References: <20010803135402.94163.qmail@web14001.mail.yahoo.com> <3B6BFF94.F11BBACE@iowna.com> <20010804141323.D16994@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <20010804141323.D16994@freeway.dcfinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01080500174200.00489@spatula.home> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Saturday 04 August 2001 10:13 pm, Chad R. Larson wrote: > Just as an aside, the FreeBSD project and core group seem to have an > enormous resistance to changing how anything is done. There's a > "we've always done it this way, it works for us, if you can't figure > it out--tough" attitude. That may be a Good Thing, as it brings > stability to the project and we all don't wind up chasing the Latest > Thing. But just don't be disappointed if this whole thread results > in no changes. I don't think I've ever seen change initiated by > non-committers. I think there is probably some amount of truth in this. I feel FreeBSD is very conservative in nature, and there is a healthy resistance to change. But that is no reason to presume that core are unreceptive, just that change will have to make a very good case. :-) Going back to the case in hand, we have had a 3-point naming scheme before. See 2.2.6-R, 2.2.7-R etc.. And going back to that system might confuse matters, as we used to call development branches by two digits (eg 2.2) and now it is just one (eg 3 and 4). Going back to 3 digit release numbers (4.4.1) might confuse people, and is probably something best avoided. Seeing as Jordan and Kris have agreed to change the name, I definately feel that 4.4-RELEASE-p1 or similar makes the best sense all round, as patches to (but no extra functionality) 4.4-RELEASE is exactly what RELENG_4_4 is. Plus it doesn't sound more secure as -SECURITY would, and will always become lexically bigger as the patch level increases. -- Andrew Boothman http://sour.cream.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message