Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:30:49 -0500 From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: "Allen Pulsifer" <pulsifer@mediaone.net>, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] Message-ID: <200003271630.LAA47410@larryboy.graphics.cornell.edu> In-Reply-To: Message from "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> of "Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:46:38 PST." <24701.953955998@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Personally I'd prefer to see both. I don't care if you say 4.0a or 4.0.1 or 4.0(1) or 4.0-20000327 or however you want to say it. I just think that if something is important enough to warrant a change then it's important enough to point it out in the release designation. Adding the changelog is a great idea. That makes it possible to find out _what_ changed, which then makes it possible to determine if one actually cares which release they have. And perhaps more importantly, if they encounter a problem they can see that it is/isn't fixed in the next release. Same as the old concept of "release notes". -Mitch >I don't really like the "4.0a" since that's still not truly indicative >of anything besides "change" - what about a changelog to accompany the >image? When you see a new changelog entry and a new checksum next to >it (I'd merge changelog and checksum information), you can compare to >see which revision you have and what changes were done subsequently. > >- Jordan > >> That's not a bad idea. >> >> How about it Jordan? Is there some way of distinguishing the various >> iterations of ISO image that are produced as you try to roll a good >> release? Maybe you could put a single letter suffix after the name, >> such as, "4.0a-install.iso", "4.0b-install.iso", etc.? >> That would also help identify the exact file to which >> checksum.md5 is referring. >> >> Allen >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Mitch Collinsworth [mailto:mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU] >> > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 7:06 PM >> > To: Allen Pulsifer >> > Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG >> > Subject: Re: Is 4.0-iso checksum right? [was: iso-image ] >> > >> > >> > >> > >I started a download from ftp.freebsd.org this Tues, and it took about >> > >24 hours to complete. The checksum matched up ok, but it looks like >> > >the ISO image has changed since then. >> > >> > yep, that's it. my checksum matches the old file. guess I should have >> > grabbed the checksum file first. :-) I hadn't notice the date change. >> > >> > That's one thing that just doesn't make sense to me about the way fbsd >> > releases are being managed. I have absolutely no problem with the >> > release being re-done for just about any reason they think is >> > justifiable. But there really should be a field somewhere in the >> > version/release number to allow distinguishing between one and another. >> > Anything that's important enough to warrant re-issueing the release is >> > obviously important enough to have a number to indicate the version you >> > have has that revision in it. >> > >> > -Mitch > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003271630.LAA47410>