[Bug 203709] Dev-model book update for "-CURRENT branch" -> "head branch" naming

From: <bugzilla-noreply_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 20:39:25 UTC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203709

Graham Perrin <grahamperrin@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needs-patch, needs-qa
                URL|                            |https://github.com/freebsd/
                   |                            |freebsd-doc/blob/main/docum
                   |                            |entation/content/en/books/d
                   |                            |ev-model/_index.adoc
             Status|New                         |Open
           See Also|                            |https://reviews.freebsd.org
                   |                            |/D41091,
                   |                            |https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu
                   |                            |gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2730
                   |                            |17

--- Comment #2 from Graham Perrin <grahamperrin@gmail.com> ---
Whilst D41091 mentioned this bug (and bug 264482), 
documentation/content/en/books/dev-model/_index.adoc
was not changed by related
<https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-doc/commit/4bae0126093f11fdadb37697f072d3b74b94305a>. 

From <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#development-model>: 

> … the production release, called FreeBSD-STABLE. …

Bug 273017 is to review the interpretations of 'production' (and more). 


<https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#_footnotedef_7> acknowledged: 

> … The -STABLE branch is still a development branch, …

The development model pictured at
<https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#model-summary> does not picture
RELEASE …

… and so on. 

> Copyright © Copyright © 2002-2005 Niklas Saers

Re: <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/contributors/#contrib-develalumni>
the copyright holder became alumnus in 2006.  

The 2005 document was representative of a point in time, it's nearly eighteen
years old, this bug report is nearly eight years old. 

Realistically, I don't foresee anyone having the impetus to transform the
document into a point of reference that can truly reflect the current model. I
respectfully suggesting archiving the document, as historic.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.