From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Apr 10 14:54:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 664) id 9E35937B422; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:54:33 -0700 From: David O'Brien To: Matthew Emmerton Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Releases Message-ID: <20010410145433.C20548@hub.freebsd.org> Reply-To: stable@freebsd.org References: <014a01c0c12e$e5e76f20$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <014a01c0c12e$e5e76f20$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca>; from matt@gsicomp.on.ca on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:54:32PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:54:32PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > pre-alphas and totally trashed most systems and rightly freak out most > novice admins), while STABLE/RC/RELEASE just makes sense. However, this You obviously haven't been reading all the threads on this same topic over the past month. We need the "BETA" stage for ports. Plain and simple. Some seem to prefer -PRERELEASE. I don't care what it is called -- 4.3-I_AM_A_MORNON_BECAUSE_I_DO_NOT_RTFM would be fine too. Read the archives to see why it is needed for ports right before a release. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message