From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 16 07:15:27 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA04610 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.hsc.wvu.edu (www.hsc.wvu.edu [157.182.105.122]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA04597 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 07:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jsigmon@localhost) by www.hsc.wvu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA16007; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:16:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeremy Sigmon To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD 2.2.x release question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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