Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:46:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Richards <paul@alpha.netcraft.co.uk> To: julian@ref.tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, vince@apollo.COSC.GOV, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, jc@irbs.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, FAQ@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 update Message-ID: <199511012047.UAA00447@alpha.netcraft.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199511011945.LAA23144@ref.tfs.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Nov 1, 95 11:45:05 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Julian Elischer who said > > NO? > I think he has it right eventhough he says it a bit oddly.. > > -current always moves forwards. > every so often a 'branch' is made that is eventually made into a release.. > What I'm not sure of myself, is whether -stable > derives from -current, or from a previous (unstable?) release. > (because we are effectively doing both at the moment) I think it would probably make sense for stable to continue as a 2.1 lineage until such time as current is felt stable enough to become a release candidate. If current is in development a long time there may be a 2.1.1 release or even a 2.1.2 Eventually though current will reach a point where it becomes a release candidate and a new 2.2 stable branch taken off it. I guess the 2.1 lineage would die at that point due to lack of resources. Just speculation on my part.... -- Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd. Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511012047.UAA00447>