atom feed77 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-stableRe: Releases
FromSent OnAttachments
Hays, SamApr 9, 2001 6:32 am 
James RafteryApr 9, 2001 6:45 am 
Steve TremblettApr 9, 2001 6:57 am 
RasputinApr 9, 2001 7:47 am 
Matthew EmmertonApr 9, 2001 8:06 am 
Christopher SchulteApr 9, 2001 8:26 am 
RasputinApr 9, 2001 8:28 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 8:45 am 
Christopher SchulteApr 9, 2001 9:23 am 
Jordan HubbardApr 9, 2001 10:25 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 10:29 am 
Markus HolmbergApr 9, 2001 10:35 am 
Michael R. RudelApr 9, 2001 10:37 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 10:38 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 10:49 am 
Jordan HubbardApr 9, 2001 10:52 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 10:56 am 
David A. KoranApr 9, 2001 11:15 am 
Jordan HubbardApr 9, 2001 11:15 am 
Przemyslaw BrojewskiApr 9, 2001 11:15 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 11:31 am 
Dan LangilleApr 9, 2001 11:36 am 
Przemyslaw BrojewskiApr 9, 2001 11:58 am 
Rodney W. GrimesApr 9, 2001 12:10 pm 
Ken BolingbrokeApr 9, 2001 12:13 pm 
Kal TorakApr 9, 2001 12:34 pm 
Matthew EmmertonApr 9, 2001 12:54 pm 
Jeffrey J. MountinApr 9, 2001 12:54 pm 
Scott DodsonApr 9, 2001 1:15 pm 
Jeff LoveApr 9, 2001 1:28 pm 
David KellyApr 9, 2001 1:42 pm 
Peter RadcliffeApr 9, 2001 1:43 pm 
Ben LoyallApr 9, 2001 2:07 pm 
James PenickApr 9, 2001 2:08 pm 
Juha SaarinenApr 9, 2001 2:20 pm 
Mike MeyerApr 9, 2001 3:54 pm 
Bob KApr 9, 2001 4:22 pm 
Conrad SabatierApr 9, 2001 5:49 pm 
Christopher K DavisApr 9, 2001 5:54 pm 
Matthew EmmertonApr 9, 2001 7:03 pm 
Donn MillerApr 9, 2001 7:12 pm 
Jeffrey J. MountinApr 9, 2001 10:53 pm.Other
Nik ClaytonApr 10, 2001 4:06 am 
Nik ClaytonApr 10, 2001 4:12 am 
Nik ClaytonApr 10, 2001 4:19 am 
Mike MeyerApr 10, 2001 5:51 am 
Steve TremblettApr 10, 2001 6:36 am 
GraywaneApr 10, 2001 6:53 am 
Michael NottebrockApr 10, 2001 8:32 am 
Rodney W. GrimesApr 10, 2001 8:34 am 
Jordan HubbardApr 10, 2001 8:41 am 
Gerhard SittigApr 10, 2001 9:51 am 
Dan LangilleApr 10, 2001 12:33 pm 
Rodney W. GrimesApr 10, 2001 1:52 pm 
Joe AbleyApr 10, 2001 2:28 pm 
Mike MeyerApr 10, 2001 2:46 pm 
David O'BrienApr 10, 2001 2:47 pm 
Dan LangilleApr 10, 2001 2:54 pm 
David O'BrienApr 10, 2001 2:54 pm 
Mike MeyerApr 10, 2001 2:55 pm 
David O'BrienApr 10, 2001 2:56 pm 
Juha SaarinenApr 10, 2001 3:28 pm 
Matthew EmmertonApr 10, 2001 5:28 pm 
Dima DorfmanApr 10, 2001 9:30 pm 
Peter JeremyApr 10, 2001 10:30 pm 
Rodney W. GrimesApr 10, 2001 10:48 pm 
Steve O'Hara-SmithApr 10, 2001 11:00 pm 
Oliver FrommeApr 11, 2001 6:45 am 
David O'BrienApr 11, 2001 10:14 am 
jonathan michaelsApr 11, 2001 12:26 pm 
Oliver FrommeApr 11, 2001 12:48 pm 
Pete FrenchApr 11, 2001 12:58 pm 
Michael ButlerApr 11, 2001 1:13 pm 
jonathan michaelsApr 11, 2001 1:20 pm 
Nik ClaytonApr 11, 2001 2:51 pm 
Dan LangilleApr 11, 2001 3:19 pm 
Nik ClaytonApr 12, 2001 12:57 am 
Subject:Re: Releases
From:Dan Langille (da@langille.org)
Date:Apr 10, 2001 12:33:01 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-stable

On 10 Apr 2001, at 8:34, Rodney W. Grimes wrote some very fine stuff:

Ahhh... well... in my 8 years of being around FreeBSD when we enter the -BETA phase on the -STABLE branch the tree goes to hell in a hand basket for about 2 weeks. So please don't make the handbook state the above. Perhaps more like:

Every few months in preperation for the next -RELEASE from the -STABLE branch the system will call itself -BETA, this is to reflect the fact that lots of changes are occuring in the tree, mainly merges of well tested code from the developers branch (-CURRENT). The tag -BETA is used to denoate that these events are occuring and you may enconter minor problems. This is not like a -BETA product from most software companies, as the code being brought in has general had a rather extensive test period, but the project has no way to test all code in all situations and breakage is bound to happen.

This would go a long way to both reducing -questions traffic and increasing understanding.

Though many have called this a bikeshed, and at times I have agreed that a lot of what is being said is a bikeshed (names are names, people who attatch permanent fixed meaning to names are going to have problems understanding lots of things, the -STABLE, -RELEASE, -BETA, -CURRENT tags being one of them.) But I have seen 2 things come up in this last round of this 8 year old thread that could actually use some fixing:

a) Rename the standard-supfile, that one in itself has caused a lot of grief and is a trivial change with minimal impact to the masses as it really should only be used by -developers, who know how to deal with all this.

Renaming is a fine idea. What about one more step. Remove it altogether. The people that need it already know how to create it. How does that sound?

b) Correct everyone who says ``FreeBSD -BETA is really just as stable as the normal -STABLE. It is not! During this phase of a branch things get borked all over the place, from not being able to build the tree due to partial MFC's or botched commits, to kernels that crash and burn due to subtle bugs and corner cases that didn't get tested in -CURRENT due to the smaller user base and narrower scope of hardware being tested on.

One way to correct this would be to actually branch for -BETA, then once the group of us -STABLE users who actually have a clue about how to build and test this stuff have had a fair chance (2 weeks?) to pound it a bit merge it back into -STABLE in one big sweep and call it -RC. This is a short lived branch, but may have a rather high impact on cvsup resources due to the tagging operations required to do this type of operation cleanly.

The masses would never see -BETA, but it would be done by people who actually know how to be beta testers :-)

Well, the branch makes a good deal of sense. It stops beta from getting out to the people who track -stable and allows changes to be even more isolated. This will also eliminate the inevitable posts to - stable and -questions reagarding "how come I got BETA code?".

Do others think this is a good idea?

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message