From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 17 14: 6:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from idea.co.uk (ultra2.idea.co.uk [194.36.20.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B83152B2 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:05:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kiril@idea.co.uk) Received: from loki.idea.co.uk (loki.idea.co.uk [194.36.20.54]) by idea.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA19547 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:02:06 GMT From: Kiril Mitev Organization: IDEA ltd To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusion Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:57:08 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.17] Content-Type: text/plain References: <199903172155.QAA02939@dna.tsolab.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <99031722052900.11541@loki.idea.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Dan Ts'o furiously typed away: > > I think it was always abundantly clear that the 3.0 release was never > considered truly suitable for production deployment and was not a part of > the "stable" branch. You may have chosen to use 3.0 because of its SMP > support, but it was always considered that staying with 2.2.X for now was > the wisest choice for production work. I beg to disagree. IIRC, the hype (sorry, true) was that 4.0 is the current branch & 3.* is the stable branch.... IF one were to split hairs, one could say that when 3.0 existed, is was -current, not -stable, but I dare say that people receiving their information from sources other than the OS sources (1) would consider 3.* to be THE stable branch, and since 3.0 happens to match 3.*, it would be interpreted as a -stable version. Furthermore, a CD release would (or at least SHOULD :-) be interpreted as a -stable release...... Keith's points are absolutely valid. > This may have changed somewhat with 3.1 but personally I think I > will wait til 3.2 or so before I move off the 2.2.X branch. Good for you. Now tell us why, please ? > I'm sorry to hear that you feel a little miffed about the release > schedule, but frankly, all things considered I don't think I would want > them to do it any other way. I think the current release policies are > the best balance between the new and the stable. That's a separate issue altogether. I saw that 3.2 is promised mid-June and I would say that this is good [TM]. ** Just Another F-BSD Lamer ** -- Kiril To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message