Ummm... I probably won't be the only one who asks, "Should that subject
line reference 2.2.6?
It's 2.2.5-STABLE until 3.0 moves into STABLE. 2.2.6-RELEASE, sure!
2.2.6-BETA, maybe. But not 2.2.6-STABLE. (:
You're saying that you don't like the branch renaming to 2.2.5-stable?
Hmmm. Discuss it with Rod then (cc'd) because it was his idea. :(
From my original scheme of things if this is infact the beginning of
beta for the next 2.2 branch release it should now become known
as ``2.2.6-BETA''. When you are done with beta and it becomes the
release it goes to ``2.2.6-RELEASE'' for the 1 day you build the
actual release (I use to just do this in the copy I had checked out
to do the release build, never comminting it until I was sure that
we had a ``RELEASE''. After the release bits are rolled it should
then go to ``2.2.6-STABLE''.
In summary order of events are:
2.2.5-STABLE What we had until you declared ``BETA''
2.2.6-BETA What should be in the tree at this moment, if
infact we are in the BETA test phase.
2.2.6-RELEASE What you commit to the tree right before you
lay down the release tag with cvs.
2.2.6-STABLE What you commit 2 minutes after the tag operation
Got it? Does it make since?
Rod Grimes rgri...@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation, Inc. Reliable computers for FreeBSD
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message