On Wed, Sep 08, 1999, Anthony Rubin wrote: > I know I will probably be shunned for the rest of my natural life for > suggesting this, but here goes. How difficult would it be to change things > around a little with the development branches? It seems there are a few > problems with 3.3-RC (including determining what RC means) and this makes it
"Release Candidate." > hard in my opinion for people with production boxes to cvsup to the -STABLE > branch if they are hoping to solve problems or get the latest patches and > fixes. I would be in favor of a -PRODUCTION branch that can never contain > code that hasn't been tested for a while. I would also like to propose That's the point of the -STABLE branch. Code is explicitly _NOT_ allowed to go into -STABLE without having first been tested in -CURRENT. > a -BETA branch which would be -PRODUCTION with new code added. It seems to Up until now, -BETA was the testing period that went up to -RELEASE. > me that the name -STABLE is confusing many people and they seem to believe > that it isn't actually stable unless it is in the -STABLE branch when this > isn't always the case. The only other suggestion is a possible change We can't be perfect. If there is instability in the -STABLE branch, please use the send-pr mechanism to report this bug, and if possible, provide a patch. -STABLE is meant explicitly for production systems, and we try to keep only stable code in that branch. -- |Chris Costello <[email protected]> |Entropy isn't what it used to be. `---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
