Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:19:41 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: jkh@FreeBSD.org, arch@FreeBSD.org, bright@wintelcom.net, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, (Jordan Hubbard) <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Message-ID: <XFMail.010316121941.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200103161747.JAA54015@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-Mar-01 Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> > Drop by the newsgroup. There was a thread last week about >> > someone using cvsup expecting to get 4.2-stable and he got >> > 4.3-beta. He was annoyed and confused because he thought >> > beta meant "beta quality" (as in inferior software). >> >> Well, there are two different things here though: >> >> 1. The usage of "BETA" to denote some pre-release collection of bits >> on an FTP site. >> >> 2. The usage of BETA in newvers.sh >> >> I think it's #2 which is actually causing all the problems here and I >> would happily forgo changing newvers.sh until it's time for the actual >> release. I don't usually mark it BETA myself, but one of my helpers >> here jumped the gun this time. :) > > As the implementor of this part of newvers.sh I would have to say that > the use of BRANCH has been heavly overloaded by the release engineers > (including myself) to indicated points on a BRANCH. > > One thing that I probably did differently was that the points on a > branch were usually never committed, I simply edited the copy in my > build tree, built the -ALPHA, -BETA, whatever, and put the bits up. > > If anything I would like to see this changed to be more in line with > that. Perhaps commit the -BETA, then immediately commit it back to > -STABLE so we can use these commit dates in a cvs co -d to get the > same tree that release engineering used to build the release, but > those cvsuping are very very unlikely to see a -BETA version. > > You have to change both the version and the branch up and back down, > not so sure I feel good about that :-(. Actually, the main reason for the bump is for the port builds, since we also bump the BASE when we go to beta. This allows time to fix ports with broken configure scripts that die on the new version number. We will always need this, and calling it 4.3-STABLE prior to 4.3-RELEASE is rather bogus I think. Calling it a RC when it's not release quality yet is bogus, too. BETA is the proper term it just seems that some of our users' minds are poisoned. Also, for what its worth, 4.3-BETA is a beta OS, it's not the final product yet. Anyone running -stable already knows that it involves some minimal risk that is not present in -release. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010316121941.jhb>