5.2: will standard-supfile point to RELENG_5_2?

[Scott Long]

Jon Noack wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

There was discussion about this after 5.1 too.  Basically, we need to
create another cvsup example file, one for RELENG_4, one for RELENG_5_x,
and one for HEAD.  Does this lead us down the road to having even more
example files?  What about one for RELENG_4_9?  I guess I'm not opposed
to this.  If someone will submit a patch, I'll consider it.

Scott