From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 16 12:43:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D1737C1A0; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:42:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA77635; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:42:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:42:55 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: Jamie Norwood Cc: Oleg Ogurok , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: which branch? In-Reply-To: <20000316123220.A90801@mushhaven.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jamie Norwood wrote: > So really, then, it is only recently that people should even have been moving > from 2.2.x to 3.x? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. So we are selling > an unstable version in the stores? One we don't recommend normal people > install? No, I didn't say <3.3 was unstable, I said that we recommend for the ultra-conservative folks that they hold off jumping in the pool before about then to give the pool-cleaners time to fish out the bugs. This is how it's always been in FreeBSD and always will be: except by getting the new release "out there" we don't have a hope of being able to put it through all of the real-world testing which others can do. If you think FreeBSD releases should be made with less bugs and higher quality, you need to join the QA program and help find them before it goes out the door so they can be fixed before, not after. Kris ---- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message