|Brian D. Woodruff||Apr 4, 2001 7:32 pm|
|Chris Faulhaber||Apr 4, 2001 7:35 pm|
|pirat||Apr 4, 2001 9:04 pm|
|Brian D. Woodruff||Apr 4, 2001 9:49 pm|
|Steve O'Hara-Smith||Apr 4, 2001 11:05 pm|
|Bruce A. Mah||Apr 4, 2001 11:20 pm|
|Ken Bolingbroke||Apr 4, 2001 11:38 pm|
|Daniel O'Connor||Apr 4, 2001 11:45 pm|
|Robert||Apr 5, 2001 12:46 am|
|Deven Kampenhout||Apr 5, 2001 12:56 am|
|Ben Smithurst||Apr 5, 2001 5:40 am|
|Bob Johnson||Apr 5, 2001 6:40 am|
|Steve Tremblett||Apr 5, 2001 6:47 am|
|Stijn Hoop||Apr 5, 2001 6:56 am|
|David Taylor||Apr 5, 2001 7:02 am|
|Mike Harding||Apr 5, 2001 7:45 am|
|Kris Kennaway||Apr 5, 2001 8:22 am|
|Ken Bolingbroke||Apr 5, 2001 10:59 am|
|Steve Tremblett||Apr 5, 2001 11:27 am|
|Chris Faulhaber||Apr 5, 2001 11:32 am|
|Nate Dannenberg||Apr 5, 2001 11:13 pm|
|Kal Torak||Apr 5, 2001 11:37 pm|
|Erik Trulsson||Apr 6, 2001 12:19 am|
|Pete French||Apr 6, 2001 3:17 am|
|Chad R. Larson||Apr 6, 2001 8:13 pm|
|David O'Brien||Apr 7, 2001 10:59 pm|
|Subject:||Re: Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC|
|From:||Erik Trulsson (ertr...@student.uu.se)|
|Date:||Apr 6, 2001 12:19:41 am|
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:13:32AM -0500, Nate Dannenberg wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian D. Woodruff wrote:
Hi gang -
I quickly learned that RC is for Release Candidate, which would inticate to me that it's somewhere between CURRENT and RELEASE, but nowhere near STABLE!!
Actually, you got just what you wanted. See below:
1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I have been using?
You specify it by using the RELENG_4 tag as you just did.
The way I've learned it is like this:
Every time you fetch the source code via CVSup, you are getting the latest developments and code adjustments in the branch you are fetching. In your case (and the rest of us on this mailing list I hope), that's the 4-STABLE branch, and it's probably as stable as you can get while staying more or less close to the leading edge.
The 4-STABLE branch is the working name for the branch of code considered to be, you guessed it, stable. Conversely, the -CURRENT branch might be anything but stable on any given day. You could think of it as a "wide alpha" for FreeBSD v5.0.
That -STABLE branch is the code base used to create the different -RELEASE, -BETA, and -RC stages that you've discovered. Each is pretty much a timed snapshot of the -STABLE branch, taken at various times.
The -BETA and -RC stages are indicators of how close we are to the next minor version (4.3 versus 4.2), and are generally taken several weeks prior to release time. The last -RC stage (-RC2 this time, I believe) lasts for two or three weeks, and if all is well, is snapshotted and named 4.3-RELEASE (this is what you get from a binary-only CD or FTP install).
So far it is correct.
I guess the 4-STABLE branch will always be 4-STABLE (regardless of the minor version number or the current snapshot's name) until it merges with (or is replaced by) 5-CURRENT. At that point, it would probably be renamed to 5-STABLE, and 6-CURRENT will probably be started as a separate branch.
This is not quite right. 4-STABLE will always be 4-STABLE, just like we still have 3-STABLE and 2.2-STABLE. (Although the latter don't really see any changes these days.)
What will happen is that eventually 5-CURRENT will be branched into 5-STABLE from which a 5.0-RELEASE snapshot will be made. Once the 5-STABLE branch has been created -CURRENT will be known as 6-CURRENT.
I'm sure someone will correct me where I've messed this description up ;)
Of course :-)
2.) is this a mistake? If so, when will it be corrected?
Nope, and probably never, since it ain't broke ;)
-- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr...@student.uu.se
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message