From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 9 20:18:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6421065670 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:18:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF848FC08 for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbdr11 with SMTP id dr11so2135507wgb.31 for ; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LFWccMetghL+/vZVW711NpO21VWoum8PJBo1ueELKfQ=; b=A9OMRff2niw2mjoebdUP2cQ7YJqWSqD0ZWmKl3jLadC4XsaISeHwx5XpfPBpWJSZIP /1IfHbvlyVDLLb3TrfBcC7OFSxnRzh5RMDyJDtFSgAouXmM2zjvw9AbjKdYlLRRiwYzX iM79l1J5m4imtnrP37Ehj9V28+1KG0yUFDeG8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.91.42 with SMTP id cb10mr7306948wib.15.1326140338098; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.158.129 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120109193653.GB10061@lonesome.com> References: <20120109193653.GB10061@lonesome.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:18:58 -0800 Message-ID: From: Kevin Oberman To: Mark Linimon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list , Chris Rees , Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:18:59 -0000 On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > > > Do you expect me to consult freebsd-announce@, verify the signature > > > of the announce, the hash of the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has > > > been released ? > > That is exactly what I expect. In fact, I insist on it. And the reason > I insist on it is because this is the documented procedure, and has been > for at least 14 releases in the last 6 years, and most likely many before > I became active. > > I have been seeing the "release is not official until..." message since at least 3.4, so it's hardly new and is unlikely to ever go away. At least there has been no release announcement on slashdot when the ISOs were rolled but before the release was ready as has happened more than once in the past. (Knock on wood!) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com