Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 20:45:53 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@Dataplex.NET> Cc: Studded <Studded@gorean.org>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Future of -stable? Message-ID: <199810091845.UAA12915@gratis.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of " Fri, 09 Oct 1998 06:52:28 EST." <l03130302b243a08eb04a@[208.2.87.5]> References: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9810081809330.3021-100000@gwyneth.gric.com> <l03130302b243a08eb04a@[208.2.87.5]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > I will again renew my recommendation that we drop "-Stable" as a "real" name > and instead make it simply an alias to the most recent branch that has been > so Christened. The "real" names would be 2.2, 3.0, etc. Huh? How will that change reality? The last "STABLE" was on the 2.1.N branch, and it has already been clearly stated that when 2.2.M is no longer supported 3.0.J will be "STABLE". M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org 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?199810091845.UAA12915>