Date: 18 Nov 2002 13:38:06 +0000 From: Richard Caley <rjc@interactive.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <87k7jbuhfl.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr> References: <20021118090627.B23359-100000@hub.org> <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87k7jbuhfl.fsf>