From: | "Devon H. O'Dell " <dodell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:19:53 +0200 |
Mail-followup-to: | users@crater.dragonflybsd.org |
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:10:47AM -0500, Walter wrote: > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I've decided on a version numbering scheme. Sorry, dates are out. > > As much as dates are interesting, they create problems when dealing > > with multiple branches. More importantly, they do not impart the > > same sense of progress that real version numbers impart and, even > > more importantly, all kernels are moving targets and tagged with > > their build dates anyway so having a release date AND a build date > > is simply too confusing. > > > > EVEN numbers denote releases. e.g. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 > > ODD numbers denote work-in-progress. e.g. 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 > > > > -CURRENT Will indicate a build based on the head of the CVS tree. > > > > -WORKING Will indicate a build baesd on our current stable tag > > > > I am going to rename the tag from DragonFly_Stable to > > DragonFly_Working to avoid confusion, but not today. This > > tag has turned out to be quite important because it allows > > developers to stay reasonably up to date but take less > > risk then the people running CURRENT. > > > > -RELEASE Will indicate a build based on a release branch. > > > > -STABLE Will indicate a build based on a post-release branch. > > Drive-by, mainly ignorant, lurker question / suggestion here: > > Instead of calling the current stable development tag WORKING > and the lastest patched release version STABLE, why not leave > STABLE for the former, and use something like UPDATED for the > latter? > > (Ducking out now.) > > Walter If anything, it should be the other way around. I do know from helping others with FreeBSD that there's a huge misconception about what the -STABLE tag really means. Lots of people run -STABLE in FreeBSD because they think that it's a `more stable' version. If any of these people come over to DragonFly, they will still also need to be re-trained. Reserving a tag called -STABLE for code that should run and be secure is good. I'm not sure that WORKING is the best name either, but I don't really care to argue about semantics. DEVELOPER or something could also be a possibility. --Devon
Attachment:
pgp00021.pgp
Description: PGP signature