Re: Version numbering for release DECISION!

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

> -On [20050328 06:42], Matthew Dillon (dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> >   -CURRENT	Will indicate a build based on the head of the CVS tree.
> >   -WORKING	Will indicate a build baesd on our current stable tag
> >   -RELEASE	Will indicate a build based on a release branch.
> >   -STABLE	Will indicate a build based on a post-release branch.
>
>
> Sorry, I think this is overkill.
>
> In the years I've been giving FreeBSD user support people already had
> difficulty understanding the difference between three names.

Perhaps it is a 'nomenclature' issue:

- RELEASE:  I read that as tested, vetted, approved, and then
'frozen in time'. An ISO pulled two years hence will be the
same as 'day one' - even if flaws have been discovered.

- STABLE:  I read that as a RELEASE *plus* tested
and needful patches for security reasons, or when
something is found to be (partially/sometimes) broken.

No new features or backports.
Updating from RELEASE to STABLE should not break anything.

- CURRENT:  I read that *historically* as 'latest commits' -
whether they (temporarily) break/impede a build or not,
and 'DEVEL' might have *always* been a better label.

Moving target, users should expect to do some manual
fiddling and/or move back, or wait a day and try again.

- Then I get confused:

"WORKING Will indicate a build based on our current stable tag."

Is that 'most current' version of STABLE,
or the 'most stable' version of CURRENT?

- or just the latest point in time where at least one
person got it to build and boot?

Maybe all that is needed is for 'CURRENT' to not (quite) be 'HEAD'.

Is that what is meant?