From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 13:41:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3F237B719; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:41:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2GLfDW24567; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:41:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:41:13 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Jim Mock Cc: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, j mckitrick , jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: More BETA evilness Re: BETA induced nervousness Message-ID: <20010316134113.I29888@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010316214210.5a3dc591.steveo@eircom.net> <20010316160949.A3791@guinness.osdn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010316160949.A3791@guinness.osdn.com>; from mij@osdn.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 04:09:49PM -0500 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (moved to -arch because...) FYI I'm fighting this cause on the -arch list, I've just quoted this message and added cc's to the people who have the authority to fix it. I want to be clear that it's not just me that's irritated by this. My current solution is instead of -BETA have -STABLE-RC, the '-RC' is there to give knowledgeable people a heads-up and the '-STABLE' is prominent enough to reduce the amount of concern. * Jim Mock [010316 13:15] wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 at 21:42:10 +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Picking a recent example: > > > > Saverio Perugini writes: > > > What is a BETA system? Is it similiar to CURRENT? > > > > We get a lot of this sort of thing every time a release rolls, > > an idea crossed my mind, perhaps if during BETA and RC phases > > /etc/motd were to carry a big message like > > > > ---------------------- > > DO NOT PANIC - BETA is a normal phase that STABLE goes through prior > > to the rolling of a release. If anything it is *MORE* stable than > > usual during BETA as all changes are monitered by the release > > engineer. > > ---------------------- > > > > Changing BETA to RC as appropriate. It *might* reduce the > > effect, worth a try ? > > This would be wonderful. It should cut down dramatically on the 3.7 > million "MY FBSD IZ BORKEN CUZ IT SAYZ -BETA N I WANT -STABLE FIX IT NOW > K PLZ THX" (I think I hung out with Alfred too much :-) emails to this > list and -questions. > > Perhaps even pointing something towards the FAQ entry on this would > help. > > The only problem is see doing this is that: > > 1) Not everyone will run mergemaster afterwards. It doesn't matter > whether they should or not, many just won't. > > 2) Not everyone who does run mergemaster will update their /etc/motd > (like me). > > So, the question is.. how can we get something like this to the most > people without printing that section of the FAQ and stapling it to their > foreheads? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message