From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jun 20 08:51:30 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id IAA25631
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:51:30 -0700
Received: from dsw.com (root@[199.171.231.5])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA25625
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:51:29 -0700
Received: from dsw.dsw.com by dsw.com (8.6.12) id JAA29344; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:51:26 -0600
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:51:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: Pete Kruckenberg <pete@dsw.com>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: to be 2.1 or not to be 2.1? 
In-Reply-To: <13452.803654592@whisker.internet-eireann.ie>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950620094912.27088E-100000@dsw.dsw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> 2.2 is just what's under development as "-current".  2.1 is a
> stability release and will only have incremental improvements from
> 2.0.5R made to it.

Any idea when disk quotas will be fixed (for 2.1, maybe)? Of course, I'm
assuming that they don't work in 2.0.5R (as stated).

Pete Kruckenberg
pete@dsw.com