From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jan 6 12:52: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from inbox.org (inbox.org [216.22.145.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57607156F3; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:51:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bsd@inbox.org) Received: from localhost (bsd@localhost) by inbox.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17903; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:49:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Mr. K." To: Darren Reed Cc: Steve Ames , committers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.0 code freeze scheduled for Jan 15th In-Reply-To: <200001062041.HAA04552@avalon.reed.wattle.id.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 7 Jan 100, Darren Reed wrote: > 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. > There really isn't an alternative. If there were thousands of people begging for beta code to test and we decided to just call it a release, that would be a different story, but there aren't. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message