Oliver Fromme wrote:
Michael Abbott wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> > Martin Nilsson wrote:
> > > Hans Lambermont wrote:
> > > .. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead
> >
> > That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the
> > difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.
>
> Let me second that. I hadn't realised that STABLE==RELENG_n (where n is
> the current version number) until very recently, and I've seen the "STABLE
> isn't stable" thing crop up over and over again over the last few years,
> both on mailing lists and IRC.
Actually, FreeBSD has three types of branches:
- current a.k.a. HEAD
- X-stable a.k.a. RELENG_X
- X.Y security branch a.k.a. RELENG_X_Y
I think it would be better to rename the 2nd one "RELENG"
(instead of "STABLE"), because that's exactly what it is:
the release-engineering branch from which the releases are
derived.
The term "STABLE" would be much better suitable for the
3rd type of branches which are currently called "security
branches". Thus we would have:
- current
- releng
- stable
Then the names match exactly what the branches are:
"current" is the current head of experimental development,
"releng" is the release engineering branch, and "stable"
is the stable branch for people who want to track only
security fixes and the most critical stuff.
Such appropriate naming would certainly prevent a lot of
confusion.
Best regards
Oliver
I agree!
My $.02
Steve
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
