From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 16 13: 2:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from bamf.demon.co.uk (bamf.demon.co.uk [158.152.173.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43CDE14EF9 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 13:01:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rich@dynamite.org) Received: from clyde (unverified [192.168.1.2]) by clyde.chugaboom.net (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:59:08 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Rich Wood" Organization: dynamite.org To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:59:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What do people think of May 1st for a 3.2 release date? Reply-To: rich@dynamite.org In-reply-to: <199903161759.SAA00733@yedi.iaf.nl> References: <199903151845.SAA01089@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org> from Brian Somers at "Mar 15, 99 06:45:08 pm" X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.02b14) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 16 Mar 99, at 18:59, Wilko Bulte wrote: > And last week here in Holland for a friend of mine who has a WC subscription > for them Talking of subscriptions, issuing releases too often may put people off subscriptions as it could start to get expensive. As people have pointed out, it takes a while to distribute CD's, as it stands, if 3.2 was to be released on May 1st, it would give 3.1-RELEASE a useable life of about 6 weeks[1] before 3.2-RELEASE was `created`. I'm not saying that we should hold off on 3.2 just because 3.1 is still new, but I feel there must be a compelling reason (major security fix, important new features etc.) to release it so soon after people get their 3.1 CD's. [1] For those of us outside USA. My CD only arrived on 13/3/99 Rich -- rich@dynamite.org If that's what they call normal, I'd rather be insane. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message