Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:52:43 -0700 From: oski@pacbell.net To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <3437F00A.AEB324C2@pacbell.net> References: <199710051822.NAA02733@set.spradley.dyn.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--------------9091C42655BCB582E261C518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all... I've been tracking - silently - this dialog and must first say "This is exactly why I like FreeBSD so much!" Where else can one monitor and contribute to to the most granular detail of development? My $0.1997 (damn inflation!) is that the suggestion below sounds great. I've been slowly turning co-workers away from NT, OS/2, and other beasts for some time. I always seem to have trouble explaining the -STABLE branch. They typically order the CDROM from W.C. and install the latest "release". Then come to me with questions about how I'm doing things on my own systems. It can be difficult to explain why I can run a specific port and they can't, even though they just bought the CDROM last week. Keep up excellent work - I'll keep trying to convert the misguided... Michael Ted Spradley wrote: > > >uname -r > > > > > >which will result in the message: > > > > > >FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE-AB > > > > > >or > > > > > >FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE (0360) > > > > I think that this is a very good idea. I would delete the "-STABLE" > > portion of the label. "FreeBSD 2.2 (0360)" conveys the same info, is shorter > > and eliminates some of the confusion. For the RELEASES, I would use > > "FreeBSD 2.2.0", "FreeBSD 2.2.5", etc. > > I like this. If it's got three digits (e.g. 2.2.5), it's a release. If it's > got two digits plus the extra part, it's taken from an on-going branch, and > the extra part indicates when it was taken. That should help clear up any > confusion between branches and releases. --------------9091C42655BCB582E261C518 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> Hello all... <P>I've been tracking - silently - this dialog and must first say "This is <I>exactly</I> why I like FreeBSD so much!" Where else can one monitor and contribute to to the most granular detail of development? <P>My $0.1997 (damn inflation!) is that the suggestion below sounds great. I've been slowly turning co-workers away from NT, OS/2, and other beasts for some time. I always seem to have trouble explaining the -STABLE branch. They typically order the CDROM from W.C. and install the latest "release". Then come to me with questions about how I'm doing things on my own systems. It can be difficult to explain why I can run a specific port and they can't, even though they just bought the CDROM last week. <P>Keep up excellent work - I'll keep trying to convert the misguided... <P>Michael <P>Ted Spradley wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>> >uname -r <BR>> > <BR>> >which will result in the message: <BR>> > <BR>> >FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE-AB <BR>> > <BR>> >or <BR>> > <BR>> >FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE (0360) <BR>> <BR>> I think that this is a very good idea. I would delete the "-STABLE" <BR>> portion of the label. "FreeBSD 2.2 (0360)" conveys the same info, is shorter <BR>> and eliminates some of the confusion. For the RELEASES, I would use <BR>> "FreeBSD 2.2.0", "FreeBSD 2.2.5", etc. <P>I like this. If it's got three digits (e.g. 2.2.5), it's a release. If it's <BR>got two digits plus the extra part, it's taken from an on-going branch, and <BR>the extra part indicates when it was taken. That should help clear up any <BR>confusion between branches and releases.</BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML> --------------9091C42655BCB582E261C518--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3437F00A.AEB324C2>