Bug 203709 - Dev-model book update for "-CURRENT branch" -> "head branch" naming
Summary: Dev-model book update for "-CURRENT branch" -> "head branch" naming
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Documentation
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Books & Articles (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Some People
Assignee: freebsd-doc (Nobody)
URL: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-do...
Keywords: needs-patch, needs-qa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-10-12 01:52 UTC by fehmi noyan isi
Modified: 2023-11-14 17:39 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description fehmi noyan isi 2015-10-12 01:52:50 UTC
The "head branch" is still referred as "-CURRENT branch" in the dev-model documentation, and in the relevant "FreeBSD Release tree" figure.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/dev-model/release-branches.html

This forum thread suggests an update 
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-development-model-book-need-update.52857/
Comment 1 Minsoo Choo 2023-07-20 16:41:28 UTC
PR D41091: <https://reviews.freebsd.org/D41091>
Comment 2 Graham Perrin 2023-09-30 20:39:25 UTC
Whilst D41091 mentioned this bug (and bug 264482), 
documentation/content/en/books/dev-model/_index.adoc
was not changed by related <https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-doc/commit/4bae0126093f11fdadb37697f072d3b74b94305a>. 

From <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#development-model>: 

> … the production release, called FreeBSD-STABLE. …

Bug 273017 is to review the interpretations of 'production' (and more). 


<https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#_footnotedef_7> acknowledged: 

> … The -STABLE branch is still a development branch, …

The development model pictured at <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/dev-model/#model-summary> does not picture RELEASE …

… and so on. 

> Copyright © Copyright © 2002-2005 Niklas Saers

Re: <https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/contributors/#contrib-develalumni> the copyright holder became alumnus in 2006.  

The 2005 document was representative of a point in time, it's nearly eighteen years old, this bug report is nearly eight years old. 

Realistically, I don't foresee anyone having the impetus to transform the document into a point of reference that can truly reflect the current model. I respectfully suggesting archiving the document, as historic.