10.0-current?

DutchDaemon

DutchDaemon

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Developer
Isn't this a bit premature for the . tag?

# uname -a
Code: 
FreeBSD box 10.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT #0 r225760: Mon Sep 26 16:00:00 CEST 2011
     toor@dump:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/box  i386

Strictly speaking: isn't this a bit early for svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/head? I see that stable/9 was opened two days ago. I guess I still haven't made the mental transition from csup (-RELEASE starts new -CURRENT) to svn (-STABLE starts before -RELEASE).
 
I wonder if this (/stable/9 splitting off from /head in Subversion) has also been done in CVS? I don't have any machines on CVS/csup any more. So I'd be curious to know what people on the . tag are building right now. Quite possible they end up with a "10.0-CURRENT surprise" just like me. So keep an eye on that.

P.S., I see these in CVS now:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/?only_with_tag=RELENG_9
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/s ... _with_tag=RELENG_9_BP

Can we assume that . has moved to 10-CURRENT here as well?
 
Code: 
CVS Tags: RELENG_9_BP, HEAD 
[B]B[/B]ranch [B]P[/B]oint for: RELENG_9

To me that sounds like a snapshot type release. In other words: RELENG_9 will evolve (-STABLE), RELENG_9_BP will remain fixed (a bit like a -RELEASE).
 
Glad you mentioned that Dutch !

I wanted to upgrade my 8.2-STABLE server to 9 and I was thinking to use [tag=.], like I used to do on my desktop. I haven't used my desktop though for a couple of months...
 
Anyway, personally I won't use head and I hope by the time I will use svn for 9-STABLE they will have fixed the ports problem for FreeBSD 10.
On the side note, I consider 10 to be way too soon out. 9 isn;t out but we have 10 as a branch .... this reminds me of a long post on the mailing list about how we need stability. One point was to keep 1 version for around 3y (personally, I don't like upgrading close to 100 machines to the latest -RELEASE every darn year).
 
da1 said:
Anyway, personally I won't use head and I hope by the time I will use svn for 9-STABLE they will have fixed the ports problem for FreeBSD 10.
On the side note, I consider 10 to be way too soon out. 9 isn;t out but we have 10 as a branch .... this reminds me of a long post on the mailing list about how we need stability. One point was to keep 1 version for around 3y (personally, I don't like upgrading close to 100 machines to the latest -RELEASE every darn year).
Click to expand...

But you don't need to upgrade to the latest -RELEASE. Why don't you upgrade every two years to extended support versions?
 
DutchDaemon said:
Code: 
CVS Tags: RELENG_9_BP, HEAD 
[B]B[/B]ranch [B]P[/B]oint for: RELENG_9

To me that sounds like a snapshot type release. In other words: RELENG_9 will evolve (-STABLE), RELENG_9_BP will remain fixed (a bit like a -RELEASE).
Click to expand...

So every changes on RELENG_9_BP will be checked in to RELENG_9 ?
 
No, RELENG_9_BP will never change after its creation. From then on, RELENG_9 is the moving target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top