Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:52:55 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: imp@village.org, jdp@polstra.com, mark@quickweb.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710251652.SAA10816@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:53:39 -0700 References: <199710032103.PAA12733@harmony.village.org> <24377.875919219@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> > Jordan, when's the first day that you'll listen to new arguments on
> > this :-)
>
> The day after 2.2.5 goes out the door. ;)
OK, 2.2.5 is out the door.
By changing the name 2.2-STABLE as of today to 2.2.5-STABLE, we get
the following effects:
(1) Cut the direct link from RELENG_2_2 to the name 2.2-STABLE -
people have to know to use the two first digits, instead of the
more direct route.
(2) Make uname info of what is now 2.2-STABLE usable to determine if
features of a certain release is available.
My view of this is that to know that 2.2-STABLE matches with the
branch tag RELENG_2_2 you already have to know a bit about the way we
use CVS. This is a more or less arbitary mapping already. Changing
the definition to 'prepend RELENG_ to the two first digits, separating
them with underscores' instead of 'prepend RELENG_ to the digits,
separating them with underscores' does not increase the level of
arbitariness. People that are knowledgable enough to do the
transformation should already know that the first and second numbers
indicate a branch, and that the third number indicate a release.
I'd say the change will be of benefit, and as far as I can see won't
hurt anything.
Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710251652.SAA10816>