On 15/08/06, Matthias Scheler <tron@zhadum.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <20060815124549.GA19604@lori.ghen.be>,
>         Geert Hendrickx <ghen@NetBSD.org> writes:
> >> This way we get consistent messages along the development process.
> >>  Otherwise, STABLE could carry no message while a RC could, disappearing
> >> again after the real formal release.  With this change only formal releases
> >> do not carry any special message in motd.
> >
> > I agree with this change for stable branches like netbsd-3, but not for
> > security branches like netbsd-3-0.  It doesn't seem appropriate to call
> > those "development snapshots", IMHO.
>
> That's good point. People might have to install them to get a security
> fix (before it's part of a release) and won't like their system as
> being marked as an unstable version becaose of that.
>
> > I'd propose to call NetBSD versions on a security branch e.g. 3.0.0_PATCH
> > (instead of _STABLE).  What do other people think about this?
>
> I like 3.0.0_PATCH because it avoids the very similar looking names like
> 3.0.0_STABLE and 3.0_STABLE for branches with different purpose.

I agree, there's no ambiguity about what the 3.0.0_PATCH branch should contain.

-- 
Matt

http://mattssanctuary.blogspot.com