From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 21 01:46:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id BAA18772 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:46:21 -0700 Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA18761 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:46:16 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA22810; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:45:48 -0700 To: Warner Losh cc: =?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= (aka Andrey A.) Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Chernov, Black Mage) , "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" , hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: xterm dumps core In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:49:13 MDT." <199510210749.BAA12226@rover.village.org> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:45:48 -0700 Message-ID: <22805.814265148@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" > Every other FreeBSD upgrade has just worked. 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 1.1.5 -> > 2.0 -> 2.0.5. (well, modulo the flock problems that were acknowledged > as a bug). It is my expectation as a user that the 2.0.5 -> 2.1 > release will go the same way. Sorry, I came into this late. Actually, Andrey, a 2.0.5 -> 2.1 upgrade is featured as part of the 2.1 installation and it does indeed assume that backwards compatibility will be maintained. I have always treated 2.0.5 as a full release and I don't know where you get the idea that it can somehow fall outside the "prior release" criteria. Warner is perfectly correct: 2.0.5 was a full release. Period. Jordan