From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Sep 17 10:59:23 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA20849
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:59:23 -0700
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA20831
          ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:59:20 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id JAA28189
          ; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:14:14 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA21366; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:14:39 -0700
To: paul@FreeBSD.org
cc: gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org, pete@sms.fi, davidg@Root.COM,
        current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Which SUP files are available and where ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:20:39 BST."
             <199509171420.PAA02732@server.netcraft.co.uk> 
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:14:38 -0700
Message-ID: <21364.811354478@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 2.1 should get abandoned immediately with the exception that a truly killer
> bug that is so bad that people can't just work around it until the next relea
se
> may get fixed with a 2.1.1 update. 

This seems contradictory.  If 2.1 is "abandoned" then where does 2.1.1
come from?

I think it goes without saying that 2.1 will have problems which could
be fixed in a 2.1.1 and that people will strongly urge us to do so.
We *always* have problems with each release.  It's a truism.

> There should be a freeze date on 2.2 when no more experimental or major
> changes are made and after a brief period, say a week or two to make sure it'
s
> basically safe, it should move over to the stable branch. Once 2.1 is out tha

That sounds OK in theory, but it both assumes that 2.2 is going to be
ready in a timeframe congruent with when people are expecting "their
bugs to be fixed" and that those bugs *will* be fixed in 2.2.  Some
3-5 months after 2.1 we WILL be sitting on a list of problems that
people are getting impatient with and it will be no trivial matter to
just assume that 2.2 will fill the bill.  I see experimental changes
going into there for awhile yet, and that doesn't translate to the
kind of "incrementally debugged" release that 2.1.1 would represent.

Given that, well, it still doesn't seem so cut and dried to me.

					Jordan