From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 3 21:46:00 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA21507 for current-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA21501 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:45:58 -0700 (PDT) From: hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA03244; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA17307; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609040447.AAA17307@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> X-Mailer: slnr v.2.13 as ported to FreeBSD To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In Email, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > If you've achieved nothing else, you've definitely made the point to > me that we've got a serious image problem with -current these days, > namely that it's entirely *too* visible. -current was truly never That's because you called it -current instead of something like -experimental.... "current" is a word usually associated with generally good things... "current" technology, "current" affairs... The "current" version of most commercial software is the last version _released_, not the version being developed. -experimental, or -develop is a much more apt description. It's semantics at its worst. -- -- tIM...HOEk The opinions expressed above are mine, and if my employer shares them, that's his hard luck.