Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:22:59 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=AFren?= Schmidt <sos@ravenock.cybercity.dk>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which lists for discussion. Message-ID: <199703171822.LAA07363@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:03:31 CST." <l03010d01af530d5ea211@[208.2.87.4]> References: <l03010d01af530d5ea211@[208.2.87.4]> <l03010d00af52e59348d3@[208.2.87.4]> from Richard Wackerbarth at "Mar 17, 97 06:28:24 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <l03010d01af530d5ea211@[208.2.87.4]> Richard Wackerbarth writes: : S=AFren Schmidt <sos@ravenock.cybercity.dk> said: : : >Well, actually it is quite easy: : > : > 2.1.X dead : : That's what they said about 2.1.5 :-) : : > 2.2.X stable : Only AFTER it has "proven" itself. : : > 3.x.x current : > : >Thats it, like it or not :) : : That's your (narrow) view. Actually, here's the list 2.0.x dead 2.1.x stagnant 2.2.x stable, by definition 3.x.x, current, by definition. Since the beginning of time (at least 2.0) -stable wsa the last release, by deifnition . -current is the bleeding edge, by definition. Now if 2.2 is reliable and useful, well, that's another matter. However, it is the new -stable, now that it has been released. The security officers only support the current and previous release (which means 2.1.7 and 2.2) in their patches and such. When 2.2.1 comes out, then support for 2.1.7 wuold likely be dropped. 2.1.7 is the end of the line for 2.1.x. There are many bugs that are in it that are fixed in 2.2, including many security flaws that will likely never be fixed. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703171822.LAA07363>