Re: 5.2: will standard-supfile point to RELENG_5_2?

On 09-Dec-2003 Jon Noack wrote:
> On 12/8/2003 9:31 PM, Scott Long wrote:
>> Jon Noack wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/8/2003 2:29 PM, Doug White wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Jon Noack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I ask this for 5.2 because it never happened for 5.1:
>>>>> Will src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile be updated to point to
>>>>> the "RELENG_5_2" tag instead of "." for 5.2?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doubtful -- standard-supfile is for grabbing -current.  If you want a
>>>> specific tag, you need to specify it. I just copy the same cvsupfile
>>>> around to different machines as I build them so I don't forget :)
>>>>
>>>> I agree that stable-supfile should be updated, though. But 5.X isn't
>>>> -stable yet. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Copying re_at_ on this...
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree.  Here's an open bug report from someone else 
>>> who thinks the same way I do:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/53197
>>>
>>> Even if you disagree with me, check out the CVS commits to 
>>> standard-supfile:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile 
>>>
>>>
>>> A very common entry is something to the effect of:
>>> "The 'standard-supfile' should track its own branch."
>>>
>>> (As Colin Percival just point out:)
>>>  From the inception of the security release branch with RELENG_4_3, 
>>> every release *but* 5.1 has had standard-supfile point to the security 
>>> release branch.  That's 8 releases in my favor vs. 1 release in your 
>>> favor.  I win ;-).
>>>
>>> I'd wager a lot of folks used to 4.x giving 5.x a try would get bitten 
>>> by this, accidentally upgrading to -CURRENT and possibly hosing their 
>>> systems as a result.
>>>
>>> In any case, the only color for the shed is midnight blue.
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> There was discussion about this after 5.1 too.  Basically, we need to
>> create another cvsup example file, one for RELENG_4, one for RELENG_5_x,
>> and one for HEAD.  Does this lead us down the road to having even more
>> example files?  What about one for RELENG_4_9?  I guess I'm not opposed
>> to this.  If someone will submit a patch, I'll consider it.
>> 
>> Scott
> 
> This is what I envision:
> current-supfile gets you -CURRENT
> stable-supfile get you -STABLE
> standard-supfile gets you updates to what you have
> 
> The following should accomplish this without breaking prior functionality:
> 
> For all:
> current-supfile tracks -CURRENT ("." tag)
> stable-supfile tracks -STABLE (currently "RELENG_4" tag)
> 
> For -CURRENT:
> standard-supfile tracks -CURRENT ("." tag)
> 
> For -STABLE:
> standard-supfile tracks -STABLE (currently "RELENG_4" tag)
> 
> For releases:
> standard-supfile tracks the release branch ("RELENG_5_2" tag for 5.2)
> 
> The attached "supfile-current.diff" adds current-supfile (based on the 
> old standard-supfile).  I didn't touch the CVS info at the top of the 
> file -- this is automatically updated when the file is checked in, right?
> 
> The attached "supfile-5.2.diff" updates the standard-supfile for 5.2 to 
> reflect this scheme by changing the CVS tag to RELENG_5_2 and modifying 
> a comment for accuracy.
> 
> The attached "supfile-README.diff" updates the README to reflect this 
> scheme (I pulled part of the text from the RELENG_4_9 README).  It 
> should be fine for everything (releases, -CURRENT, and -STABLE).

This sounds very sane to me.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/