5.2: will standard-supfile point to RELENG_5_2?

[Jon Noack]

On 12/8/2003 2:29 PM, Doug White wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Jon Noack wrote:
> 
> 
>>I ask this for 5.2 because it never happened for 5.1:
>>Will src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile be updated to point to
>>the "RELENG_5_2" tag instead of "." for 5.2?
> 
> 
> Doubtful -- standard-supfile is for grabbing -current.  If you want a
> specific tag, you need to specify it. I just copy the same cvsupfile
> around to different machines as I build them so I don't forget :)
> 
> I agree that stable-supfile should be updated, though. But 5.X isn't
> -stable yet. :)

Copying re@ on this...

I respectfully disagree.  Here's an open bug report from someone else 
who thinks the same way I do:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/53197

Even if you disagree with me, check out the CVS commits to standard-supfile:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile

A very common entry is something to the effect of:
"The 'standard-supfile' should track its own branch."

(As Colin Percival just point out:)
 From the inception of the security release branch with RELENG_4_3, 
every release *but* 5.1 has had standard-supfile point to the security 
release branch.  That's 8 releases in my favor vs. 1 release in your 
favor.  I win ;-).

I'd wager a lot of folks used to 4.x giving 5.x a try would get bitten 
by this, accidentally upgrading to -CURRENT and possibly hosing their 
systems as a result.

In any case, the only color for the shed is midnight blue.
Jon