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
