Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:16:53 -0500 (EST)
From:      Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>
To:        -Vince- <vince@apollo.COSC.GOV>
Cc:        Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, julian@ref.tfs.com, jc@irbs.com, current@FreeBSD.org, FAQ@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 2.1 update
Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.91.951101231224.26683A-100000@latte.eng.umd.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951101194018.15405D-100000@apollo.COSC.GOV>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, -Vince- wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> 
> > It seems that -Vince- said:
> > > > At some   point after 2.1,  -CURRENT will  probably  become 2.3-CURRENT and
> > > > -STABLE will be 2.2-STABLE to end up with 2.2-RELEASE and so on.
> > > 
> > > 	So what you are saying is that -release is really just -current 
> > > at some point?  and -stable is just really -current before a -release?
> > 
> > Not really.
> > 
> > What we have *now* is:
> > 
> > * 2.1-STABLE will become 2.1-RELEASE
> > * 2.2-CURRENT aka "the Bleeding Edge(tm)". 
> 
> 	Yes, but won't people in 2.1-RELEASE when it comes out be supping
> -CURRENT once again?
> 
> > What we will [probably] have is
> > 
> > * 2.2-CURRENT become 2.2-STABLE after 2.1-RELEASE is out. It is intended to
> >   be 2.2-RELEASE one day. 
> > 
> > When 2.2-STABLE begins its life, 2.3-CURRENT will begin and so on. 
> > 
> > Note as I'm   not part of   the core team  so what   is above  are only  my
> > thoughts, they may want to change the numbers :-)
> 
> 	Oh okay, it seems like everyone has a different way of explaining 
> this =)

Maybe that's right, but it's not what I understood to be true.  Understand
that this stuff is not written in stone, there are no contracts forcing 
things to happen in any particular manner, but I had the understanding 
that we were going to be doing a dual-track thing.  The even numbered 
releases were to be ones that would concentrate on stability, and so the 
possibility of these being late would be kinda high.  Balancing this out 
would be the odd numbered releases, which would satisfy those (like me) 
that wanted more frequent releases.  The combination, it was to be hoped, 
might possibly satisfy those of both camps.  Using this thinking, there 
will not be a 2.2 stable, just a 2.2 RELEASE, and the next stable target, 
for those using FreeBSD for more than a hobby, would be 2.4.

> 
> Cheers,
> -Vince- vince@COSC.GOV - GUS Mailing Lists Admin
> UC Berkeley AstroPhysics - Electrical Engineering (Honorary B.S.)
> Chabot Observatory & Science Center - Board of Advisors
> Running FreeBSD - Real UN*X for Free!
> Linda Wong/Vivian Chow/Hacken Lee/Danny Chan Fan Club Mailiing Lists Admin
> 
> 

==========================================================================
Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu, I run FreeBSD-current on n3lxx + Journey2
 
Three Accounts for the Super-users in the sky,
  Seven for the Operators in their halls of fame,
Nine for Ordinary Users doomed to crie,
  One for the Illegal Cracker with his evil game
In the Domains of Internet where the data lie.
  One Account to rule them all, One Account to watch them,
  One Account to make them all and in the network bind them.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.951101231224.26683A-100000>