Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> Cc: Lamont Granquist <lamont@scriptkiddie.org>, "A. L. Meyers" <a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107211507080.42589-100000@snafu.adept.org> In-Reply-To: <20010721144206.E19014@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Chad R. Larson wrote: > Why is it so difficult for people to understand that calling the > head of a development branch "-stable" is just going to invite > problems? Names don't cause problems, people do... Lack of understanding is to blame. If you understand the development process and the way the various branches are handled - all possible by reading publicly available documentation - you'll have a very 'stable' experience. OTOH, you may prefer to rush into things and deploy systems you don't fully understand. I don't think that will proove successful on any platform. Later, -Mike -- 2^n eyes are better than 2. Join the logwatchers community today. http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107211507080.42589-100000>