From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jan 9 14: 6:15 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1946414BED; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:06:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA52398; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:05:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Mike Harding , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When does the 4.x branch go stable? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Jan 2000 13:56:28 PST." Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 14:05:58 -0800 Message-ID: <52396.947455558@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Probably not until at least 4.1 depending on how stable it actually is. It > would be a great disservice to immediately label 4.0 stable the day after > release since it's so much new technology and there are bound to be > problems for the first little while. If but only life was that simple. :) The code has to branch off the mainline sooner rather than later or quite a bit of re-engineering work planned for -current will stack up behind 4.1-RELEASE. I also predict that unless we put such road blocks in people's way, and I think that would be a bad thing, -current is about to become a lot more interesting again over the next 90 days. That means that for 4.1 to ever have a chance *be* stable, it has to get off the express -current track. People may get confused over the resulting nomenclature, I do understand that, but that's a minor downside by comparison. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message