From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 1 20:23:19 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA11937 for current-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:23:19 -0800 Received: from bacchus.eng.umd.edu (bacchus.eng.umd.edu [129.2.94.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA11928 ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:23:13 -0800 Received: from latte.eng.umd.edu (latte.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.15]) by bacchus.eng.umd.edu (8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03433; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (chuckr@localhost) by latte.eng.umd.edu (8.7/8.6.4) id XAA26823; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:16:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 23:16:53 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@latte.eng.umd.edu To: -Vince- cc: Ollivier Robert , julian@ref.tfs.com, jc@irbs.com, current@FreeBSD.org, FAQ@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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.