From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Oct 9 11:47:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA23695 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:47:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gratis.grondar.za (gratis.grondar.za [196.7.18.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA23614 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:46:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Received: from grondar.za (IDENT:kJXbwVT6ZJ2z5Ddshn6Nonn8H5dRcGUU@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gratis.grondar.za (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA12915; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 20:45:54 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.za) Message-Id: <199810091845.UAA12915@gratis.grondar.za> To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Studded , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Future of -stable? In-Reply-To: Your message of " Fri, 09 Oct 1998 06:52:28 EST." References: Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 20:45:53 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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