Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:26:51 +0200 From: Robert Joosten <robert@ml.erje.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Version nomenclature [was RELENG_7 to 8] Message-ID: <20090815112651.GA5007@ismet.erje.net> In-Reply-To: <d2e731a10908142248o6ee77e1ie89a62f3c0937324@mail.gmail.com> References: <d2e731a10908142248o6ee77e1ie89a62f3c0937324@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > STABLE and CURRENT could only point to two things and there were about > 10 potential tags involved. Tags... You say tags. Now, freebsd is an constantly evolving project. It's never finished. And when a branch is, it's EOL. It took me two minutes, back in 97 to get the grasp and at that time the security branch had yet to be introduced, before that I tracked 'stable'. Go figure. You know, that's the beauty of this project: it's 'nix, but different. I agree with you we should find a solution about all this name-bitching: let's encourage them to actualy READ the F. manual. Let's include it in the FAQ ! Or include some pointer in UPDATING for those that like to mess with source code. Or would you like to rename STABLE into UNSTABLE ? Or FIXED ? Or into the $next_upcoming_release_number-ALPHA ? Now that sounds appealing to newcomers.... not. I occaisionally run a STABLE box in production without any trouble, so it's name is what you get: great software, it's stable enough. We also inject new software releases into our ports collection. I never read anything about it's name scheme. Funny, but very relieving IMO. Cheers. Robert
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090815112651.GA5007>