From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Jun  6 13:54:54 1996
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA06080
          for stable-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA06074;
          Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA02799; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199606062054.NAA02799@austin.polstra.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: nate@sri.MT.net, stable@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org,
        scanner@webspan.net
Subject: Re: Status of -stable 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jun 1996 13:32:32 PDT."
             <17488.834093152@time.cdrom.com> 
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 13:54:43 -0700
From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> No, it's been a matter of concern for some time, actually.  David
> and I have been talking about -stable in hushed tones of "What the
> f*** are we going to do about this wart long-term?  We can't keep
> doing this!" for at least a year.  This may have been the last
> straw, but it was hardly the only (or even most significant) one.
> It's an ongoing maintainance headache and we really don't have the
> resources to do this, it's just that simple.

OK, I'll buy that.  You're certainly in a better position to appreciate
all the issues than I am.

-- John