Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 19:36:19 +0000 From: Theo PAGTZIS <T.Pagtzis@cs.ucl.ac.uk> To: "Chris D. Faulhaber" <jedgar@fxp.org> Cc: Theo PAGTZIS <T.Pagtzis@cs.ucl.ac.uk>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 3.2 -> 3.3-stable Message-ID: <13992.944768179@cs.ucl.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Dec 1999 13:43:00 EST." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912091342080.20028-100000@pawn.primelocation.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is definetely a paradox... A stable which is not stable...what is it (enigma) ? This definitely proves once more my thought about the erroneous of the naming convention and the semantics behind it..... My impression of a stable is that one develops something which has been tested to the extent that is stable, i.e won't crash unless you stress it to the limits (whatever the limits are). Obviously this stable should need more testing before one can promote it to RC or release candidate..It is only when the release candidate has matured in terms of bug fixes that it could move up to a RELEASE merging with the master branch and setting there a revertable milestone. From release one could then spawn a new branch that would move for the next version of stable---RC-----Release. In other words: 1) ----- (proposed) REL 3.2-----Stable 3.3-----RC 3.3----REL 3.3---Stable 3.4---RC 3.4---REL 3.4---etc.. with a new branch spawning at REL 3.X and merging back on REL 3.Y for new developments while the master REL 3 is kept only with getting more bugs fixed not new development unless a merge with REL 3.Z is imminent (and even that should be branch-layered) if you want to really keep the REL master branch intact from merge waves.. whereas now the scheme is 2) ------ (currently) REL 3.2----Stable 3.2---RC 3.3---REL 3.3---Stable 3.3----RC 3.4---REL 3.4---Stable 3.4----etc.. Now look the situation of the crash of the stable 3.3 and try to place it in one of the two schemes...which one is more reasonable for you...?????? Consider now again the existing convention....is it really sound????? Theodore CS dept. UCL >On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Theo PAGTZIS wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I did a cvsup on the the 8th and the world build trashed on main and in >> particular on diff.o giving me undefined ref to prepend_default_options >> >> Is there a reason for that? >> > >Because -stable world was broken for a while...re-cvsup and try again. > >----- >Chris D. Faulhaber <jedgar@fxp.org> | All the true gurus I've met never >System/Network Administrator, | claimed they were one, and always >Reality Check Information, Inc. | pointed to someone better. > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13992.944768179>