On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 03:04:42AM +0300, Toxa wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:38:21PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > So the current plan is to branch RELENG_6 (aka 6-STABLE) sometime around > > May or June 2005. That will begin a 1-3 month freeze and stabilization > > process for the 6.0 release. After that is released, we will do 6.1, > > 6.2 and onwards at likely 4 month intervals. In May/June 2006 we'll > > look at doing RELENG_7, or we might wait until Nov/Dec 2006 (12 months > > Don't you think branching 6-STABLE (and, thus, getting 6.x RELEASEs) > around June 2005 is too early for users which may be confused a bit with > 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x releases. Now we know 4.x stands for "technologically > outdated" but proven stability, and 5.x stands for new technology, new > stable branch. In 2005, 4.x won't lost its actuality, 5.x will be in the > mainstream (hopefully), and what new 6.x releases will be stands for? > I think, there is no radically new technologies, any improvemens from > 6-current could be MFC'ed to 5-stable, so why messing with 6.x releases > so early? 6.x already contains a fair bit of work that would be inadvisable to MFC. If nothing else, the TTY renaming can't be merged to a STABLE branch. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:21 UTC