Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:26:52 -0700 From: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org>, "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, "joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us" <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>, "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010627132652.A13576@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <20010626234435.H461@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>; from nik@freebsd.org on Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:44:36PM %2B0100 References: <20010626140650.B9911@freeway.dcfinc.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106270929340.6316-100000@vimfuego.saarinen.org> <20010626234435.H461@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:34:45AM +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Chad R. Larson wrote: >>> Actually, -CURRENT is "development" and -STABLE is "QA/BETA" and >>> -RELEASE is what most folks would think of as "stable". So, why >>> don't we name them like that? I wouldn't have a problem with >>> -DEVEL, -BETA, -RELEASE, and perhaps putting -STABLE on the new >>> RELENG_X_Y branch. >> >> I think that would clear up a lot of the confusion. It's kind of hard to >> accept that -STABLE doesn't necessarily mean "stable" (currently), if you >> see what I mean ;-). > > I've rewritten section 19.2.2.1 and 19.2.2.2 at > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html > > Do people think this gets the point across any better? Yes. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.com DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 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?20010627132652.A13576>