From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 15 04:50:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA03867 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (EEL.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA03861 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 04:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [199.183.109.242] (cod [199.183.109.242]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA29574; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 06:50:07 -0500 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 06:50:07 -0500 To: "Christoph P. Kukulies" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: -stable (still worth supping?) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >The subject says it. Is -stable stil alive or should one >abandon supping it? The demise of -stable is, IMHO, somewhat exaggerated. I expect that thare will continue to be occasional corrections that will be incorporated. If "stable" is more appropriate than "current" for your needs, I encourage you to continue to track it. However, you might wish to switch to CTM as your update mechanism. That way you will automatically get notification of any changes without placing a burden on the servers. Since it is a slowly changing target, it is not difficult to fake the conversion from sup to CTM. For those who cannot maintain the entire tree, it is also reasonable to manually bypass an occasional update to the portion of the tree which you are not maintaining. If nothing else, you can use the arrival of a CTM update as a trigger to use sup to update your tree.