From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Jun 26 14: 8: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freeway.dcfinc.com (cx74889-a.phnx3.az.home.com [24.1.193.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE7737B405 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chad@freeway.dcfinc.com) Received: (from chad@localhost) by freeway.dcfinc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10045; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:06:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chad) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:06:50 -0700 From: "Chad R. Larson" To: Jordan Hubbard Cc: juha@saarinen.org, joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010626140650.B9911@freeway.dcfinc.com> References: <15157.11221.593513.478892@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us> <00cf01c0fc40$c0348db0$0a01a8c0@den2> <20010624023403R.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010624023403R.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@osd.bsdi.com on Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 02:34:03AM -0700 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 Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 02:34:03AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > From: "Juha Saarinen" > Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:00:59 +1200 > >> "19.2.2.2. Who needs FreeBSD-STABLE? >> If you are a commercial user or someone who puts maximum stability of >> their FreeBSD system before all other concerns, you should consider >> tracking FreeBSD-STABLE. This is especially true if you have installed > > It's probably time to rewrite that paragraph substantially. It was > something of a tactical error to encourage certain interest groups to > run "work in progress" code, even if that work is very carefully > bounded and kept "in progress" for the shortest periods possible. I've been using FreeBSD, and reading the mailing lists since around 2.0.5, and this discussion comes up about three times a year. Each time the Powers That Be agressively reject the solution most obvious to someone not a PTB, which is to rename these branches. There have got to be several choices that more accurately reflect what the branches are used for, and that wouldn't confuse the newly converted. Actually, -CURRENT is "development" and -STABLE is "QA/BETA" and -RELEASE is what most folks would think of as "stable". So, why don't we name them like that? I wouldn't have a problem with -DEVEL, -BETA, -RELEASE, and perhaps putting -STABLE on the new RELENG_X_Y branch. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.com DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message