Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:41:36 -0700 From: David Knapp <dknapp@luciamar.k12.ca.us> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stability concerns in latest -STABLEs. Message-ID: <37337A30.2DF8756@luciamar.k12.ca.us> References: <001201be98bd$29db4770$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schwartz wrote: > > What it seems to be is a rush to get patches into STABLE before a freeze > causing stable to be less stable than usual. I hate to suggest another layer > of abstraction, but perhaps STABLE should be 'frozen' for a bit near a > freeze so causal STABLE users get actually STABLE code. I'm a newbie, so maybe I don't understand, but why not go with 3.1 RELEASE? Shouldn't it be more stable or as stable as 3.1-STABLE? dbk -- David Knapp PC Network Specialist LMUSD 805 473-4390 ext 426 FreeBSD Newbie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37337A30.2DF8756>