Hello Ken, Monday, March 21, 2005, 9:19:30 PM, you wrote about:
> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 21:04 +0100, Daniel Gerzo wrote: >> Hello Ken, >> ok, since there is official anouncement and there are already posted >> some information to news servers like osnews, i think we should update >> newvers.sh so people who download BETA1 build wouldn't be confused >> with -PRERELEASE branch. >> > Thanks for the suggestion but we can't. Lots and lots and lots of past > experience has shown us that it really freaks some people out if > newvers.sh on a RELENG_X branch says anything other than -STABLE, > -PRERELEASE, or -RELEASE. ok, if FreeBSD-team's experience is that it's better keeping -PRERELEASE in BETAx builds, keep it, but I personally think that people who download BETA builds shouldn't be misinformed with uname's output that they are using -PRERELEASE build. another thing is that when there will be more BETAs, it will be harder to track bugs, because people reporting them will everytime send that it appears in -PRERELEASE no matter how old their build is... > Just before the Release Candidates we will create the RELENG_5_4 branch > and the RCs will be based on that. Once that's done we are free to name > that RELENG_5_4 branch "-RC1", "-RC2", etc. But doing that sort of > thing on the RELENG_X branches has caused lots of panic-stricken email > from people who believe the RELENG_X branches are "stable branches" and > therefore should never have words like "-BETA" associated with them. well, people tracking RELENG_X should know, that -STABLE branch isn't always so stable as they think it is, or as they expect it, therefore -BETAx in uname's output shouldn't bring those paniced e-mails :) -- Best regards +----------==/\/\==----------+ FreeBSD | DanGer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | (__) The | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ261701668 | \\\'',) Power | http://danger.homeunix.org | \/ \ ^ To +----------==\/\/==----------+ .\._/_) Serve [ How about washing his underwear in jalapena pepper juice? <G> ]