Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:39:10 +0800 From: Michael Robinson <robinson@public.bta.net.cn> To: nate@sri.MT.net, terry@lambert.org Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606140939.RAA12045@public.bta.net.cn>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that -stable >is known to be buildable. No. The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that kernel panics are antagonistic to getting real work done. Some people (such as myself) depend on FreeBSD to do real work. Some people (so far, not myself) need bug fixes or new features as part of doing real work, and would rather not wait 15 months between releases. >If -current were known to be buildable, >it would support the argument for getting rid of -stable. If release-quality code could be packaged every three months, *that* would support the argument for getting rid of -stable. -Michael Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606140939.RAA12045>