On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:11:22PM +0000, Michael Abbott wrote: > >>You can track changes to a particular release - say by using > >>RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still > >>say you are tracking STABLE? > >If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition > >tracking -STABLE. > > Damn, I'm confused now. Let me try and get this straight: > > CURRENT > This is, by definition, broken a good part of the time, and is > what it says, namely current, ie work in progress. > > STABLE > This is broken some of the time and .. uh .. isn't really all that > stable, actually. > > RELENG_n_m > This is completely stable and only tracks security fixes.
Incorrect. This is "completely FIXED", which is not the same thing as STABLE. "Fixed in a broken state" is still broken, aka the serial I/O problems in 6.x that I've found (and for which there is apparently no current fix in any of the branches of 6.x.) > RELENG_n (RELENG_6 at the moment) > Has somebody just said that RELENG_6 = STABLE? I'm going to guess > then that RELENG_7 is CURRENT. > No, this doesn't make sense to me at all. > > >Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6! > > Eh? T? As in "Tag", which is the syntax that acutally shows up in the "CVS" directory under the source tree. -- -- Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
