Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 07:39:29 +0000 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> To: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <20021117073929.GC5793@trit.org> In-Reply-To: <3DD6EEA0.AD524CA2@ene.asda.gr> References: <20021117115616.T301-100000@extortion.peterh.dropbear.id.au> <3DD6EEA0.AD524CA2@ene.asda.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> wrote: > It sure is misleading. Why is it called -stable then? You would expect > to stand up to its name. I think the name "STABLE" comes from stability in terms of the API and ABI, not stability as reliability. That seems to be a much more reasonable goal--not to say that reliability shouldn't be goal, but that a development branch as -STABLE is should be expected to be unreliable at times (this has been mentioned before). The API and ABI in -STABLE are actually stable, unlike in -CURRENT . . . To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021117073929.GC5793>