From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jul 21 15:12:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (snafu.adept.org [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498F037B405 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:12:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CD33A9EE06; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BF59B00C; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:12:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: Lamont Granquist , "A. L. Meyers" , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? In-Reply-To: <20010721144206.E19014@freeway.dcfinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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