From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Aug 15 15:13:05 1996
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA28701
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28691
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA25865; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
cc: davidg@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org,
        stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:02:23 PDT."
             <199608152202.PAA26974@austin.polstra.com> 
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:12:06 -0700
Message-ID: <25863.840147126@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Are we still supposed to be maintaining RELENG_2_1_0?  I thought that
> ended when 2.1.5 came out.  Just asking -- either way is fine with me.

The concensus seems to be that we'll use it as a "support branch" up
until the point where some variant of 2.2 is stable enough to upgrade
to, then it truly will fade away.  I don't expect to be doing any
more releases along that branch, mind you, but there's no reason not
to throw the folks who are still following it the occasional bone.

Speaking of which, what do folks think about shutting down sup access
to -stable and forcing a move towards CTM and CVSup for -stablefolk?

It's *very* wasteful to have all those supfilesrv process's scanning
the entire source tree for what are, at most, a couple of changes a
week, not to mention the overhead of cvs updating the checked out
version of -stable for sup on freefall.

					Jordan