# 10.0-current?



## DutchDaemon (Sep 26, 2011)

Isn't this a bit premature for the . tag?

`# uname -a`

```
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).


----------



## swallowtail_butterfly (Sep 26, 2011)

Most big projects don't do releases off the main branch, e.g. Mozilla, GNU Emacs. And, I think, FreeBSD moves in the same direction.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 26, 2011)

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?


----------



## da1 (Sep 27, 2011)

Head's up for the 10.0 folks -> ports problem.


----------



## alie (Sep 27, 2011)

What is _BP means on RELENG_9_BP ?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 27, 2011)

```
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).


----------



## gkontos (Sep 28, 2011)

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...


----------



## _martin (Sep 28, 2011)

da1 said:
			
		

> Head's up for the 10.0 folks -> ports problem.



Ouch. Indeed good to know.


----------



## da1 (Sep 28, 2011)

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).


----------



## pkubaj (Sep 28, 2011)

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).



But you don't need to upgrade to the latest -RELEASE. Why don't you upgrade every two years to extended support versions?


----------



## vand777 (Oct 10, 2011)

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=148805&postcount=6


----------



## alie (Oct 12, 2011)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> ```
> CVS Tags: RELENG_9_BP, HEAD
> [B]B[/B]ranch [B]P[/B]oint for: RELENG_9
> ```
> ...



So every changes on RELENG_9_BP will be checked in to RELENG_9 ?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Oct 12, 2011)

No, RELENG_9_BP will never change after its creation. From then on, RELENG_9 is the moving target.


----------

