Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:07:11 -0400 From: "Francisco Reyes" <fran@reyes.somos.net> To: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Gregory Sutter" <gsutter@zer0.org> Subject: Re: 4.1-STABLE fails to 'buildkernel'? Message-ID: <200009120616.CAA29532@sanson.reyes.somos.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009120131250.1305-100000@thelab.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:31:44 -0300 (ADT), The Hermit Hacker wrote: Francisco Reyes previously wrote. >> Why don't you cvsup to a prior date? and The Hermit Hacker answered >doesn't it defeat the point of calling it -STABLE if it can't compile? :) One can be a purist and say yes.. however I think that Stable is a good compromise between newer/improved/more secure code and having something which is really "stable" and that always compiles. Moreover, as the number of machines that you want to keep stable increases, it may be a good idea to keep them to the same level. This way you don't end up with surprises. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate 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?200009120616.CAA29532>