On Thursday 19 March 2009 5:34:12 am Robert Watson wrote: > For me the distinction remains fuzzy, but I think a key to either approach > would be avoiding having to fully re-QA, do BETAs, build new packages, etc. > This suggests taking RELENG_6_4 on some date, perhaps rebranching if it's a > point release, or not if it's an ISO reroll, and bundling it with exactly the > same packages we shipped in 6.4 (etc) and bumping a few documentation parts. > We'd cut a release candidate just to make sure we had the bits right, ask > people to test install it, etc, but as there would be no new features, we'd > expect relatively little change. I think I wouldn't even change the proposed > EoL date of the branch -- 7.x is doing very well, and we need developers to > focus on getting 8.0 ready to ship.
Actually, a point release shouldn't be a rebranch, it would just be a new tag on the existing RELENG_6_4 branch. The only difference in a point release vs. an errata patch is what you change the release name to (6.4-RELEASE-p(X+1) vs 6.4.1-RELEASE)) and whether or not you upload bits to the ftp servers. If the goal is to generate ISOs that we put up for ftp, I think it should be a point release, but it would certainly reuse 6.4 packages (or have no packages). That is, I think "ISO reroll" == "point release". I also think we shouldn't upload things to ftp that aren't actual releases (that is, I wouldn't upload 6.4-RELEASE-p10 to ftp since we don't upload new release bits for every security advisory we do). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
