On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, John Darrow wrote:

: Now wait a minute, have we completely dismissed the use of 'sup' for
: tracking our source tree, in favor of AnonCVS?

No; however, "sup" follows "the latest source".  If you want "exactly" 1.5,
there have been tarballs created for that purpose that will go with the 1.5
release, or you can now use anoncvs.  In fact, 1.5.1 pullups will start
going in on Monday.  (This is in an effort to get 1.5.1 out the door on a
much shorter time schedule than past patch releases--as early as January or
February.)

:  Typically we've left the
: branch as-is for at least a few days to allow release builds.
: (Yes, I know how to use AnonCVS, but for simple tracking, and
: _especially_ for importing into a local CVS tree (for tracking local
: changes), sup is a much simpler and much more lightweight method.)

Official release builds aren't supposed to use sup.  If you want to do a
build based on "the release" that is not using the officially released
binaries, the only _truly_ supported method is downloading the source/sets
tarballs shipped with "the release."  Sup is basically a means of tracking
the latest source, be it release branch or current.

Now, with that said, I wasn't personally aware that people were actually
trying to do _exact_ "release" builds off of sup.  I can provide the list of
what needs to be reverted, if you'd like; however, I now plan to look at
this process a little more closely for 1.5.1.

: And speaking of which, traditionally the 'current' branch of sup has
: followed the release cycle and then returned to current a few days after
: the official release.  But during the past year we added the 'release'
: branch to sup, which followed the netbsd-1-4 branch.  What now?  Does
: 'current' revert to real current, and 'release' jump to netbsd-1-5 branch
: (thus causing a huge surprise for those who have been tracking 1.4.3 that
: way), or are we adding a new 'release-1-5' branch, or are we discounting
: sup altogether (as the above timing could suggest)?

There's a lot to this, particularly because we are trying to aim for a much
shorter branch-to-release cycle than we've had in the past as well.  I can
conceivably see all of 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and -current being actively maintained
simultaneously for releases in the next year.

We should probably do something a little more uniform here, by creating sup
collections that follow the release branches explicitly.  "current" would
then _always_ follow -current, and we would have "release-1-5",
"release-1-6", etc.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@wasabisystems.com>  *  http://www.wasabisystems.com/
-- Speed, stability, security, and support.  Wasabi NetBSD:  Run with it.