Use of newest version number such as 10.0 instead of current

[Luchesar V. ILIEV]

On 11/11/2011 21:07, Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 20:33, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear all ,
>>>>
>>>> Instead of using Current and then renaming everything  for a new version
>>>> number ,
>>>> is it not possible to use the newest version number in place of Current
>>>> when it is branched .
>>>>
>>>> Such a change will prevent unnecessary renaming problems .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For everyone , it i very easy to understand that 10.0 is the latest ,
>>>> therefore the current one .
>>>>
>>>> The current may be used as a symbolic link to the newest version number ,
>>>> such as used by Debian .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example , for FreeBSD 9.0 RC1 , the ports directory name was
>>>>
>>>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which is NOT available now , and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> pkg_add -r *
>>>>
>>>> is giving error about directory not found .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is preventing testing and / or using efforts .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know , it is possible to rename local link names , but
>>>> everyone is not so much knowledgeable .
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand your proposal.
>>> In a month (er, two.  well, maybe three) when 9.0 is released, do you
>>> propose that the svn HEAD be called:
>>> (a) 10.0
>>> (b) 9-CURRENT
>>> (c) CURRENT
>>> (d) something else
>>>
>>> I do not realy care for either (a) or (b), since (a) would imply that the
>>> version is not changing, even as incompatible KBI/ABI changes are made.
>>> Likewise for (b), once the KBI/ABI changes, HEAD is decidedly no longer a
>>> form of '9'.
>>>
>>> -Ben Kaduk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> During development of Version 9 , the name of directory was
>>
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-current/Latest/
>>
>> During the 9.0 Release RC1 , the above name was used .
>>
>> Before releasing the 9.0 Release RC2 , the above has been changed .
>>
>> This change has broke the links in 9.0 Release RC1 .
>>
>> When we look at the ftp sites ( including mirrors ) all of them
>> has changed .
>>
>> This naming structure is requiring re-structuring all of the directories
>> over all ftp , and other sites .
>>
>> This is a wasted effort .
>>
>> Instead of doing this , a scheme like the following
>> may be used :
>>
>>
>> Instead of using /*-9-Current/ , use 10.0 for current .
>>
>> Assume our main directory is the following :
>>
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/
>>
>> As next directory , use 8.1 , 8.2 , 9.0 for current .
>>
>>
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.1/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/8.2/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/
>>
>> All of the directories , for example ,
>> ... ports
>> ... release
>> ... snapshot
>> ... whatever is related to 8.2 , 9.0 will be under 8.2 or 9.0 ,
>> in such a way that nowhere else a directory with name , for example ,
>> 9.0 will exist ...
>>
>> For example :
>>
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/ports/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/packages/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/snapshot/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/release/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/stable/
>>
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/handbook/
>> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/9.0/amd64/doc/man/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ....
>>
>>
>>
>> Explain to the people that 9.0 is the "Development" branch ,
>> NOT for production use .
>>
>> A single sentence to learn .
>>
>> Another step may be to insert  an explicit
>> warning message  into current motd file about "Development" status of 9.0 .
>>
>>
>> When time comes to make a release of 9.0 , which a new development
>> branch will be generated ,
>>
>> take a copy of 9.0 , and rename this directory as 10.0 .
>>
>> By using suitable find/replace scripts ,
>>
>> find all occurrences of 9.0 with strict match and replace them by 10.0 .
>>
>>
>> After generating directory 10.0 , propagate it to mirrors .
>>
>> Please , notice that , NOTHING is changed for the 9.0 ,
>> and NOTHING is broken with respect to generation of a new branch ,
>> all over the world ....
>>
>>
>> Then start to work on 10.0 ...
>> Continue in that way .
>>
>> Apply the similar steps to 9.0 for 9.1 :
>>
>> Take a copy of 9.0 , rename it as 9.1 , ...
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much .
>>
>> Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> 
> Why do I have the feeling that this whole problem is simply a matter of
> r225757 not being MFC-ed to stable/9?
> 
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/main.c?r1=222035&r2=225757
> 
> Cheers,
> Luchesar

I've filed a PR for this...

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=162490

Hopefully, I'm not getting it entirely wrong. :)

Cheers,
Luchesar

P.S. The PR is not yet online.