CVS commit: src/etc (Telling people to send bug reports)

On 15/08/06, Matthias Scheler <tronzhadum.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <20060815124549.GA19604lori.ghen.be>,
>         Geert Hendrickx <ghenNetBSD.org> writes:
> >> This way we get consistent messages along the
development process.
> >>  Otherwise, STABLE could carry no message
while a RC could, disappearing
> >> again after the real formal release.  With
this change only formal releases
> >> do not carry any special message in motd.
> >
> > I agree with this change for stable branches like
netbsd-3, but not for
> > security branches like netbsd-3-0.  It doesn't
seem appropriate to call
> > those "development snapshots", IMHO.
>
> That's good point. People might have to install them
to get a security
> fix (before it's part of a release) and won't like
their system as
> being marked as an unstable version becaose of that.
>
> > I'd propose to call NetBSD versions on a security
branch e.g. 3.0.0_PATCH
> > (instead of _STABLE).  What do other people think
about this?
>
> I like 3.0.0_PATCH because it avoids the very similar
looking names like
> 3.0.0_STABLE and 3.0_STABLE for branches with different
purpose.

I agree, there's no ambiguity about what the 3.0.0_PATCH
branch should contain.

-- 
Matt

http://mattssanctu
ary.blogspot.com

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:08:28PM +0000, Matt Fleming
wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Matthias Scheler <tronzhadum.org.uk> wrote:
> >In article <20060815124549.GA19604lori.ghen.be>, Geert Hendrickx
> ><ghenNetBSD.org> writes:
> >> I'd propose to call NetBSD versions on a
security branch e.g. 3.0.0_PATCH
> >> (instead of _STABLE).  What do other people
think about this?
> >
> >I like 3.0.0_PATCH because it avoids the very
similar looking names like
> >3.0.0_STABLE and 3.0_STABLE for branches with
different purpose.
> 
> I agree, there's no ambiguity about what the
3.0.0_PATCH branch should 
> contain.

So, we'll do it this way in the future?  

	Geert

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:08:28PM +0000, Matt Fleming
wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Matthias Scheler <tronzhadum.org.uk> wrote:
> >In article <20060815124549.GA19604lori.ghen.be>, Geert Hendrickx
> ><ghenNetBSD.org> writes:
> >> I'd propose to call NetBSD versions on a
security branch e.g. 3.0.0_PATCH
> >> (instead of _STABLE).  What do other people
think about this?
> >
> >I like 3.0.0_PATCH because it avoids the very
similar looking names like
> >3.0.0_STABLE and 3.0_STABLE for branches with
different purpose.
> 
> I agree, there's no ambiguity about what the
3.0.0_PATCH branch should 
> contain.

So, we'll do it this way in the future?  

	Geert