From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 18 5:38:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7A437B401 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.r.caley.org.uk (pc-62-31-72-193-ed.blueyonder.co.uk [62.31.72.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B89C43E4A for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:38:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjc@caley.org.uk) Received: from pele.r.caley.org.uk (pele.r.caley.org.uk [10.0.0.12]) by mail.r.caley.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAIDc750032168 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:38:07 GMT (envelope-from rjc@bast.r.caley.org.uk) Received: from pele.r.caley.org.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pele.r.caley.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gAIDc6mI026849 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:38:06 GMT (envelope-from rjc@bast.r.caley.org.uk) Received: (from rjc@localhost) by pele.r.caley.org.uk (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gAIDc6ed026846; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:38:06 GMT (envelope-from rjc@bast.r.caley.org.uk) X-Authentication-Warning: pele.r.caley.org.uk: rjc set sender to rjc@bast.r.caley.org.uk using -f To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) References: <20021118090627.B23359-100000@hub.org> <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr> From: Richard Caley In-Reply-To: <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr> Date: 18 Nov 2002 13:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: <87k7jbuhfl.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk> Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr>, Lefteris Tsintjelis (lt) writes: lt> If its a matter of "never committed at all" (I do have a few doubts on this one) lt> then I guess I have no other choice here but -STABLE or at least some other branch lt> that is at least maintained. So, which one might that be? If STABLE has become de-facto a development branch, and RELEASE needs to remain rack solid so it can be treated as having had all the pre-release testing on it, making people reluctant to put in any but the safest fixes, perhaps it would be a good idea if there were a system of official patches to RELEASE. These could come with a proviso that they have been tested to STABLE standards, but not to RELEASE standards, but if you absolutely need the fix... -- Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_ |< To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message