From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Oct 16 11:45:19 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA24790
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA24785
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA07182; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610161843.LAA07182@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: jdw@wwwi.com (Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse), freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:14:01 PDT."
             <199610161814.LAA03254@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:43:37 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>From The Desk Of Terry Lambert :
> > That divergance is exactly the problem I am trying to point out.  
> > Already three "significant contributors" people have said that
> > -stable isn't worth the trouble.  However, stable is the only choice
> > for people who want a stable OS who don't have a lot of time to
> > invest in sanitizing their own private -current.
> > 
> > >So... I would rather see a 2.2R that was, perhaps, a bit rough at the
> > >edges (like 2.0R) sooner rather than later.  
> > 
> > I agree.  If -stable has abandoned, it's time to look toward something
> > new.  Based on the assertions that several people have made that 
> > "current is usually fairly stable," it seems like the benefits of 
> > this might far outweigh the effort, or at least the possibility is
> > real enough to discuss.
> 
> I think you are missing the answer:
> 
> Stable gets to be called stable after bunches of people have tested
> a release candidate.  Bunches of people are not willing to test an
> interim release when something newer is available.
> 
> 
> Stable has not been abandoned.  When current is code cut as a release
> candidate and is deemed to be sufficient stable to be called stable,
> then there will be a new stable.
> 
> 
> So it comes down to:
> 
> Do you want it to be stable?
> 
> Or do you want people to make bug fixes to it, potentially rendering
> it unstable?
> 
> You can't have both.
> 

Actually, if an ISP or two volunteers to update -stable that is to 
add patches and test the patches in a production environment we can
have both 8)

	Amancio