Subject: Re: Tangent: Current-kernel revision naming...
To: Chris G. Demetriou <>
From: Andrew Brown <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/15/2000 20:23:57
(i removed greywolf and abs from this, since they might be getting
tired of this :)

>> i merely meant that it (1.4A et al) was a descendant of 1.4 because
>> 1.4A contains all of what is 1.4.  no?
>_no_, not necessarily.
>Bugs may be fixed differently on the branch than on the trunk, i.e. a
>different fix may go into the trunk (1.4A, etc.) than goes into the
>branch (1.4).  In fact, in some cases, the need for a change on the
>trunk (1.4A and later) may be completely eliminated by other changes
>on the trunk, i.e. 1.4 may get a change that 1.4A does not need and
>will never need.

certainly the big fixes will be different (in that sense, 1.4.1 and
1.4.2 are merely more "mature" descendants of 1.4), but the features
will all be the same, no?  and 1.4 won't have any features that 1.4L
lacks, will it?

>The only statement like this that you can make is that there's some
>revision (in the general sense) of the source tree which has both 1.4
>and 1.4A as descendents.  For 1.4, if i recall correctly this is
>tagged netbsd-1-4-base, and is the set of revisions that were current
>when the netbsd-1-4 branch was created.

so there's some common base.

>As a matter of policy, things must be done -- possibly differently
>("the right way") -- on the trunk before they are done on the branch.
>Which means, in some sense, in terms of bugs and features, you could
>claim that "1.4A" is a descendent of the "1.4".  However, if you're
>going to apply that metric, then similarly there is some revision x
>for which it can be said that 1.4x contains all of what is in 1.4.1,
>etc. (at worst, the value of x on the trunk when 1.4.1 is released).

sure.  but i'd argue that 1.4.1 and 1.4F are siblings at best, or
perhaps, more properly put, cousins; no direct descendant relationship
is attachable (is that a word?).  if i was to draw a straight line
that was current, like this


where these are the -current source code (and they all have letters),
then 1.2-release would (in my mind) branch sideways (to the right) at
the same point that 1.2A was "created".  1.2.1 would go sideways from
that (1.2-release) and 1.2B would be further down the page.

>It is obviously wrong to claim that there's some revision 1.4x which
>is a descendant (by any metric which actually involves source code
>origin) of 1.4.1.  The relationship between 1.4 and 1.4A isn't quite
>as obvious, but, in the same way, it is untrue to say that 1.4A is a
>descendant of 1.4.

that's true.  i wasn't trying to claim that at all.  merely that 1.4K
and 1.4.1 have some common ancestor.  they are both, after all,
descended from, say, 1.3M, no?  even if the features that 1.3M has
aren't *all* represented in 1.4-release.

|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|             * "ah!  i see you have the internet (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"       * "information is power -- share the wealth."