On 15 Mar 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> "Bruce A. Mah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Differences of opinion on naming aside...the branch isn't supposed to > > last long at all. The point is to provide a slightly polished snapshot > > to the wider developer community. We can't do the QA/releng work on > > HEAD without calling for a code freeze (which we early on decided that > > we would *not* do). > > Then you don't need a branch, you just need a simple tag, and you can > slide it forward if something needs fixing, and remove it after rolling > and shipping the snapshot. No, in this case that doesn't help. What we want is to grab a stable moment, then to allow development to continue. However, we may then want to tweak that stable moment without impinging on development, which requires a branch. The QA/releng work requires us to modify the stuff being released following the branchpoint. It's worth noting, BTW, that originally the release engineering team planned to use Perforce for this to avoid the branch issue entirely, minimize impact on the main tree, etc, but decided not to due to the high volume of complaints on the topic. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
