From owner-cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 29 21:23:24 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBAA16A4CF for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:23:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from wasley.bl.mmtr.or.jp (wasley.bl.mmtr.or.jp [210.228.173.142]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 51B0243FA3 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:23:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rushani@bl.mmtr.or.jp) Received: (qmail 28705 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2003 14:23:19 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (202.229.16.132) by mx.bl.mmtr.or.jp with SMTP; 30 Oct 2003 14:23:19 +0900 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:23:16 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20031030.142316.39153977.rushani@bl.mmtr.or.jp> To: murray@freebsd.org From: Hideyuki KURASHINA In-Reply-To: <20031030050358.GF48267@freebsdmall.com> References: <200310292232.h9TMWOJe061655@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031030050358.GF48267@freebsdmall.com> X-PGP-Public-Key: http://www.bl.mmtr.or.jp/~rushani/public_key.txt X-PGP-Fingerprint: A052 6F98 6146 6FE3 91E2 DA6B F2FA 2088 439A DC57 X-URL: http://www.bl.mmtr.or.jp/~rushani/ X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.58 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: doc-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-doc@freebsd.org cc: rushani@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/releases index.sgml X-BeenThere: cvs-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the doc and www trees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:23:24 -0000 >>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:03:58 -0800, Murray Stokely said: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 02:32:24PM -0800, Hideyuki KURASHINA wrote: > > Log: > > Add FreeBSD 4.9 to the past releases list. > > Personally, I think both 5.1 and 4.9 should not be in the past > releases section, and that's why I didn't add it there. I used the word `past release' as a release that is already announced to the world... However, > The page is broken up into 'Current Releases', 'Future Releases', and > 'Past Releases'. We never used to list them twice in current and past > until 5.1. I think that was just a mistake, and there's no need to > duplicate it for 4.9. your opinion is much reasonable for me. I will correct them. Thanks for clarification! -- rushani