ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

[Stephen Clark]

Oliver Fromme wrote:

>Michael Abbott wrote:
> > Roland Smith wrote:
> > > Martin Nilsson wrote:
> > > > Hans Lambermont wrote:
> > > > .. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead
> > > 
> > > That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the
> > > difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.
> > 
> > Let me second that.  I hadn't realised that STABLE==RELENG_n (where n is 
> > the current version number) until very recently, and I've seen the "STABLE 
> > isn't stable" thing crop up over and over again over the last few years, 
> > both on mailing lists and IRC.
>
>Actually, FreeBSD has three types of branches:
>
> - current a.k.a. HEAD
> - X-stable a.k.a. RELENG_X
> - X.Y security branch a.k.a. RELENG_X_Y
>
>I think it would be better to rename the 2nd one "RELENG"
>(instead of "STABLE"), because that's exactly what it is:
>the release-engineering branch from which the releases are
>derived.
>
>The term "STABLE" would be much better suitable for the
>3rd type of branches which are currently called "security
>branches".  Thus we would have:
>
> - current
> - releng
> - stable
>
>Then the names match exactly what the branches are:
>"current" is the current head of experimental development,
>"releng" is the release engineering branch, and "stable"
>is the stable branch for people who want to track only
>security fixes and the most critical stuff.
>
>Such appropriate naming would certainly prevent a lot of
>confusion.
>
>Best regards
>   Oliver
>
>  
>
I agree!

My $.02
Steve

-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)