From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Jul 22 18:13:57 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA11891
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:13:57 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA11883
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:13:52 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA01148; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:12:57 -0700
To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth)
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Support charges ( was Re: SUP target for -STABLE...) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 22 Jul 1995 19:11:09 CDT."
             <v02130500ac3728a4eb9b@[199.183.109.242]> 
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 18:12:56 -0700
Message-ID: <1146.806461976@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> I would like to suggest that the -STABLE tree be distributed by CTM as well
> as other mechanisms. This mechanism is particularly appropriate when the
> changes are infrequent in nature.

Of course.  I don't see any reason that ANY branch we advertise should
not be made available by both sup and CTM..  It's just a question of
resources, and I expect resources would be made available as real
money started coming in (and it goes without saying that we've now
come to the point where separate machines for mail, sup/CTM, testing
and development would be a real plus).

					Jordan