freebsd stable - Oct 2007 - [simon@FreeBSD.org: cvs commit: src/crypto/openssl/ssl ?d1_both.c ?dtls1.h ssl.h ssl_err.c]

Ken Smith wrote:
 > Oliver Fromme wrote:
 > > Uhm, are you sure?  In the past, whenever a new RELENG
 > > branch was created, it was implicitly the next -stable
 > > branch, because -current moved on to the next version
 > > number.  Did that policy change?
 > 
 > It is implicitly the *next* -stable but it's not there yet. 
That's
 > what Simon was saying.
 > 
 > FreeBSD's development (specifically the CVS repository) is public.
 > But the bottom line is that the RELENG_X branches are *development*
 > branches.

I'm well aware of that.  My question was only about naming
conventions.

People often talk about either "-current" and "-stable",
so was curious what RELENG_7 would be called right now.
Obviously it's not called "-current", but (according to
you and Simon) it's not called "-stable" either.

Actually the often used terms "-current" and "-stable"
are ambiguous and not really accurate.  E.g. someone
talks about "the -stable branch" and you have no idea
which one of the several RELENG_* ones he means.  It's
probably better to always use the CVS names or the
branch name (from sys/conf/newvers.sh).

 > No change in any policies or anything like that.  What I'm describing
 > has been the status quo for a long time but people tend to forget or
 > never quite "get it" or ... so I'm sure you're not the
only one thinking
 > this way.

I'm not thinking that way.  :-)  I do know very well that
the -stable branches are development branches.  Although
in pre-4.0 days (when release branches didn't exist)
-stable had a slightly different meaning, but it has
really been a long time since then.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606,  Gesch?ftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht M?n-
chen, HRB 125758,  Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart

FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr:  http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

 > Can the denizens of this group enlighten me about what the
 > advantages of Python are, versus Perl ?
"python" is more likely to pass unharmed through your spelling
checker than "perl".
        -- An unknown poster and Fredrik Lundh

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> People often talk about either "-current" and
"-stable",
> so was curious what RELENG_7 would be called right now.
> Obviously it's not called "-current", but (according to
> you and Simon) it's not called "-stable" either.
I have been making an effort in the recent past to refer to the branches 
by their branch names (RELENG_*) to avoid confusion. I am also of the mind 
that we should have mailing lists named after the branches as well, rather 
than going through the awkward transitions that you describe in this post. 
(Which is a long-winded way to say that I think your confusion is 
justified and understandable.)

I think this is going to be more prevalent in the time-based release world 
since we will soon have 3 different RELENG branches that could reasonably 
be called "-stable".
> Actually the often used terms "-current" and "-stable"
> are ambiguous and not really accurate.  E.g. someone
> talks about "the -stable branch" and you have no idea
> which one of the several RELENG_* ones he means.  It's
> probably better to always use the CVS names or the
> branch name (from sys/conf/newvers.sh).
Voila! GMTA :)

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection