Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:09:37 +0100 From: "Morten Seeberg" <morten@seeberg.dk> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl>, <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <036901bf40b4$5573b300$1600a8c0@SOS> References: <XFMail.991207125633.steve@pooh.elsevier.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Since 3.0 has been out for about a year, why not make more "RELEASE" > > versions during a year? Or just freeze a few snapshots during the STABLE > > branch? > Given a 30 day beta period on each release I think that time does not > permit more than three or four releases per year. Freezing snapshots doesn't > really help unless they are also heavily tested. Revising the release times for 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 I know realise that I´ve just misunderstood the way -STABLE works :) And that I should just start using RELEASE on my production machines, instead of -STABLE, which I thought was "better"/"more stable" than RELEASE. Thanx to Steve and Reinier. 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?036901bf40b4$5573b300$1600a8c0>