thanks to all those gr8 comments, I learnt. and sorry for creating noise, I was in office and thus could not put required effort.
as far as liking of release names goes, I feel BETA-x naming practice serves the purpose, it makes sense to casual users. changing version with date is too fast....just my two cents if they count ;-) Aston On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:45 PM, mdh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Fri, 10/24/08, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD-7.1, BETA2 or PRERELEASE > > To: "Masoom Shaikh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 6:26 AM > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:07:32PM +0530, Masoom Shaikh > > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > y'day I csuped the src and built installed the > > kernel from RELENG_7 > > > I was expecting FreeBSD-BETA2 in output of `uname -a` > > > it is still -PRERELEASE, is it by decision or I have > > to change something ? > > > > > > I greped /usr/src for PRERELEASE but cud not locate > > it. I guess release > > > engineering team does that. comments ? > > > > This question keeps coming up. > > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-October/184992.html > > > > RELENG_7 == PRERELEASE. There is no "BETA2" tag > > to follow. > > > > No one is sure at this point where the "BETA2" > > string has come from > > (meaning why it was idealised or why it's being used). > > I'm of the > > belief that it's something Ken is hand-hacking in > > newvers.sh before > > building + making ISO releases and putting them up on the > > mirrors. > > And I am also of the opinion that this should stop, and we > > should simply > > name the releases PRERELEASE-YYYYMMDD to signify the build > > date. > > It seems likely. I've only ever seen -PRERELEASE and -STABLE, when > tracking "RELENG_[0-9]" branch. On the other hand, I have seen -RELEASE, > -BETA, -RC, etc, when installing from media. > > Perhaps differentiating these isn't a bad idea, however, when it comes to > uname output in PR's, despite the queries it generates over here. A media > install can always be safely assumed to be a given set of code, while if > someone is tracking a branch via cvsup, the build time would show up in > uname output, however the user may still need to be queried for rcsid's or > asked to cvsup to the latest if the issue is considered to possibly be a > base system and/or kernel code issue. > > It's probably worth discussion and consideration, though. I don't know > if/how useful the utility of the current naming conventions are to folks > trying to solve potential code bug PRs. > > - mdh > > > > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
