Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:44:02 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, Drew Tomlinson <drew@mykitchentable.net>, bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Difference between RELENG_* and RELENG_*_BP Message-ID: <200205030344.g433i7b88531@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks all for the responses. Between the web pages and this
discussion, my knowledge of this has now become a *lot* clearer.
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> -STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
> really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
> when, I think we had a long knock-down drag-out fight about
> naming of -STABLE vs. -DEVEL, and the expectations users have
> about the resulting code. That was where -SECURITY showed up:
> -SECURITY is a "stable version of -STABLE" (as if things weren't
> exciting enough... 8-) 8-)).
Gah! Too much excitement for me. ;)
I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
IMNSHO.
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
"All the wonders you seek are within yourself."
-Sir Thomas Brown
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205030344.g433i7b88531>