Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 06:42:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better Message-ID: <20030908063856.W80387-100000@moo.sysabend.org> In-Reply-To: <20030908001530.T22654@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > As for the rest of your post, it's all very interesting, but incredibly > unlikely to happen. The creation of the RELENG_4_X branches solved the > immediate need for a "stable branch plus security fixes." 5.x is still > -current, and while we do need to be more careful with our marketing > (and more careful with what goes into a 5.x release), massive branch > renaming just isn't going to happen, nor is expanding the number of > branches going to help. Once -STABLE moves from 4.x to 5.x (so that the project is back on 5.x-R, 5-S, and 5-C), is STABLE once again going to BE stable? It wasn't a bad thing that the CVS tag reflected what the source you were checking out was meant to be. I fully understand that accomodations have been made since two concurrent release tracks are the norm for right now, but having things witheld from -stable until they've passed muster in -current in the past was a very good thing. Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030908063856.W80387-100000>