Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems . For everyone , it i very easy to understand that

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Chuck Burns
On Friday, November 11, 2011 07:29:46 AM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: -(snipped stuff)- This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not so much knowledgeable . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Chuck Burns brea...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 07:29:46 AM Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: -(snipped stuff)- This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but everyone is not

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Chuck Burns
On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since there is no binary

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1 . If you use a proper RC, then pkg_add will work until a new RC, and since

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread George Kontostanos
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz wrote: Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable , he should NOT use 9.0 RC1

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Johan Hendriks
George Kontostanos schreef: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Miroslav Lachman000.f...@quip.cz wrote: Chuck Burns wrote: On Friday, November 11, 2011 08:17:52 AM you wrote: -snip- My sentence is NOT about Current , but 9.0 RC1 . Perhaps , you will NOT say , if a person is NOT knowledgeable ,

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Alexander Yerenkow
If FreeBSD starts using numbers for HEAD/CURRENT, i think a lot of users would find them selves in a situation that they download version 10 in this case and that they are using a develepment version instead of a real release version. Assuming there will be link from main page - probably

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when it is branched . Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Luchesar V. ILIEV
On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a new version number , is it not possible to

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Luchesar V. ILIEV
On 11/11/2011 21:07, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote: On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything for a

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Doug Barton
On 11/11/2011 04:29, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: pkg_add -r * is giving error about directory not found . This is preventing testing and / or using efforts . I see your perspective on this, but package support for HEAD (N-current) is always done on a best effort basis, and is

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread George Kontostanos
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: Dear all , Instead of using Current and then renaming everything  for a new version number , is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current when

Re: Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

2011-11-11 Thread Doug Barton
On 11/11/2011 14:23, George Kontostanos wrote: BTW I follow both stable and current lists. I have noticed that people still ask questions in current regarding 9-RC(*) problems. Maybe if it was clear that current is now 10 this would not happen. Actually up until the actual release we encourage