From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Sep 11 23:26:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from sanson.reyes.somos.net (freyes.static.inch.com [216.223.199.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A25437B422 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomasa (tomasa.reyes.somos.net [10.0.0.11]) by sanson.reyes.somos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA29532; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:16:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from fran@reyes.somos.net) Message-Id: <200009120616.CAA29532@sanson.reyes.somos.net> From: "Francisco Reyes" To: "The Hermit Hacker" Cc: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" , "Gregory Sutter" Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:07:11 -0400 Reply-To: "Francisco Reyes" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 98 (4.10.2222) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 4.1-STABLE fails to 'buildkernel'? Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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