From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Dec 10 18:10:13 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA12724
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12716
          for <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:10:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA11123; Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:07:39 -0800
To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth)
cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Sup's Freefall-centric tree conventions 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 1995 13:17:45 CST."
             <v0213050cacf0e0476aa6@[199.183.109.242]> 
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:07:38 -0800
Message-ID: <11120.818647658@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> I still feel that .../stable should simply be a link to the "real" .../2.1 tr
ee.
> That way, I don't have to move the trees around when someone suddenly
> decides that it is time to change the "-stable" branch and I want to keep
> the 2.1 tree.

But 2.1 and -stable simply aren't the same things.  If you want to keep
the 2.1 tree then keep the 2.1 tree, by all means, just don't call it
-stable because that's not what it is! :-)

					Jordan