From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 20 07:15:15 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE0E16A419 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:15:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from pecan.exetel.com.au (pecan.exetel.com.au [220.233.0.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1026D13C4B0 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:15:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from 28.201.233.220.exetel.com.au ([220.233.201.28] helo=[192.168.100.148]) by pecan.exetel.com.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IN1Ti-0003gK-HR; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:15:10 +1000 In-Reply-To: <20070820004745.GB39765@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> References: <46C83C2F.3060105@fpt.vn> <20070819150415.K15146@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070820004745.GB39765@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sam Lawrance Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:15:10 +1000 To: Jerry McAllister X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: Wojciech Puchar , FreeBSD Questions , vuthecuong Subject: Re: freebsd 7 release date :) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:15:15 -0000 On 20/08/2007, at 10:47 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:05:00PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> >>> just for reference only: >>> Original release planned date of 7.0 was end of Jul. But now is >>> nearly end >>> of Aug. >>> So Which date you guess 7.0 will be released? :D >> >> when it will be ready. if time is more important than quality for >> you get >> simply get -current. even if not - and you would like help testing >> it, >> fetch and report problems. > > There was obviously no intent to challenge or apply preasure in the > question so you don't need to be snippy. If you don't have any > useful > information or at least information you think might be useful > (qualifier > for my posts) then don't bother replying - at least not snippy, posts. > We can afford to be civil - expecially when a civil question is asked. > > The person was just noting that the old guesses were no longer > operable > and hoping that some new best guesses might have been made. We all > know these dates are very movable and for very good reasons. No > one is > pushing for low quality, hurried up junk. But those best guesses by > people in the know about how the processes if moving along are helpful > for those of use out here in the hinterland trying to make it through > each day. There was nothing snippy in that post, it was just succinct. By now, people in the know have learned that it really will be done "when it's done".