From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Apr 9 9:24: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from poontang.schulte.org (poontang.schulte.org [209.134.156.197]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10A137B422 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from christopher@schulte.org) Received: from schulte-laptop.schulte.org ([64.183.199.40]) by poontang.schulte.org (8.12.0.Beta5/8.12.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id f39GNvIr020383; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:23:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010409111054.00b18008@pop.schulte.org> X-Sender: schulte@pop.schulte.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:23:30 -0500 To: Dan Langille From: Christopher Schulte Subject: Re: Releases Cc: Matthew Emmerton , Rasputin , In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010409101533.00ace930@pop.schulte.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote: >Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar >with. -CURRENT fits all those requirements. > > I'm not as hot about the BETA designation, but generally feel it should > > be left alone simply because it's documented, and thus should NOT be a > > problem. > >By this designation, we could call a brake a clutch and get away with it >because it's all documented. The problem is not with the documentation. >It's with the name. Documentation is not the only factor. The name was chosen for a *reason*, to convey a point. It's choice was not arbitrary. And it's since been accepted by the development and administrative community. Question being: Now, are we to a point where that accepted name needs to be reevaluated for the sake of general consensus, need or desire. That's the real question, IMHO. --chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message