Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:16:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Sigmon <jsigmon@www.hsc.wvu.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD 2.2.x release question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961016101245.15906D-100000@www.hsc.wvu.edu> In-Reply-To: <l03010503ae8a050b6f01@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I generally agree with your approach. However I would suggest that not > 2.1.5, but 2.1.x is the appropriate one for production. IMHO, we need to > continue to provide some support for it until what would by current > practice be called 2.2.5 comes out. > > I also think that it would improve our image if we would call THAT release > 2.2.0 and have a formal PRE_RELEASE that we call 2.2 Beta. > Is there any sort of criteria set for what has to be done to -current before it can be released? All I have seen is ambiguous dates like Feb'97 and such or my personal favorite, "When its Done". I am a firm believer in the "When its Done" software releasing scheme, but is there a set criteria to mark "When its Done"? Thanks Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.961016101245.15906D-100000>