Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 21:09:38 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches Message-ID: <42969D82.9040102@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org> <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Francisco Reyes wrote: > So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with? > Why not just stay in 5.X name wise? Because 5.x has been declared to be STABLE, and some of the changes in 6.x will require that applications (and especially kernel modules) be recompiled (which isn't allowed on a stable branch). > Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years? Something like that, yes. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42969D82.9040102>