From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 19 08:31:49 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10251 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:31:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA10225 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:31:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from benedict@echonyc.com) Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost) by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA18943; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:31:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: Snob Art Genre To: John Kelly cc: Brian Handy , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New 3.0 SNAPshot CDROM about ready for production.. In-Reply-To: <34eb9f96.655310@mail.cetlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, John Kelly wrote: > Yes, but -stable is so far behind in features it's -stale. And now > that Jordan's merging all he can into -stable it may be thoroughly > broken by the time the 2.2.6 CD is cut. All new bugs with few new > features. I find this hard to believe. I don't track -stable at the moment, but I did so for some time, and I did not encounter (m)any freshly introduced bugs. What makes you think that the functionality being backported to -stable isn't useful or tested? I am under the impression that both of those are criteria for inclusion in -stable. Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message