On Nov 5, 11:56pm, Markus Baeurle wrote:
> Subject: Re: Release process (was: Re: 1.2-release/inst-12.fs...)
> Hi Rob!
>
> In message <9611041114.ZM8480@warhol>
>           Robert Black <r.black@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [I shortened the quotes as nobody did before]
> > How about a naming scheme such that RiscBSD based on NetBSD 1.2 would have
the
> > following designations:
> >
> > NetBSD release type    RiscBSD release type    name
> >
> > current                current (alpha)         1.2a-current
> > beta                   current                 1.2b-current
> > release                current                 1.2r-current
> > release                beta                    1.2r-beta
> > release                release                 1.2r-release or 1.2-release
> > current                release                 1.2a-release or 1.2-stable
> >
> > We could also possibly add an extra minor for RiscBSD use.
>
> I think that's too complicated.
> Why not just say that there are still known bugs in RiscBSD which shouldn't
be
> in a release version?
>
> Consequently, RiscBSD shouldn't use the NetBSD release scheme then because
> something shouldn't be called 1.2-Release if there are serious known bugs in
> it. But I think this is also a problem for other ports.
>
> Many of the above combination won't live long either (I expect that RiscBSD
> 1.2-beta will not stay on the ftp server much longer).
> The last line doesn't make sense at all IMHO because you can't base something
> release-like on a moving target like NetBSD-current.

The idea is that if you find a kernel which is particularly stable you make a
release set based on it, much like FreeBSD.

> The best idea for this is probably another minor number, because we would
more
> or less cut a release tree for RiscBSD 1.2.1 from NetBSD-current at a
specific
> date.
>
> But let's be realistic, what changes will be necessary from RiscBSD
1.2-Release
> in the near future? There will probably be nothing else but newer better
> kernels so why would we need an extra naming scheme, people are aware that
> they're new anyway.
> X is probably a different thing but why not name this independently?
> If you think that RiscBSD = NetBSD + X11 we really need a completely
different
> naming scheme, but I wouldn't like to see that.

The only bit of X which changes rapidly is the server. THe major changes tend
to be to support new versions of the operating system (changes in kernel
drivers, etc). This means that to avoid confusion the X release needs to be
tied to the OS release in some way. I really ought to use an OS-based number
for the versions of Xarm.

Cheers

Rob

--