From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jan  6 12:42:20 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from darren2.lnk.telstra.net (darren2.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.53.33])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C20E815730; Thu,  6 Jan 2000 12:42:13 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by darren2.lnk.telstra.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) id UAA00997;
	Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:42:09 GMT
Received: from avalon.reed.wattle.id.au(192.168.1.1) by firewall.reed.wattle.id.au via smap (V2.1)
	id xma000995; Thu, 6 Jan 00 20:41:41 GMT
Received: (from darrenr@localhost)
	by avalon.reed.wattle.id.au (8.9.0.Beta3/8.9.0.Beta3) id HAA04552;
	Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:41:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>
Message-Id: <200001062041.HAA04552@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au>
Subject: Re: 4.0 code freeze scheduled for Jan 15th
To: steve@virtual-voodoo.com (Steve Ames)
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 100 07:41:40 +1100 (EST)
Cc: committers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20000106152026.A98222@virtual-voodoo.com> from "Steve Ames" at Jan 6, 0 03:20:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
> 
> *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to release and ship a
> 4.0-beta? -CURRENT = development which scares people. Beta means most bugs
> already ironed out and looking for test by larger audience.  -RELEASE should
> not be a beta, ever.

What do you think 3.0-RELEASE was ?
This seems to be how FreeBSD works now.

Darren


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message