Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:49:17 -0800 From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Jamie Norwood <mistwolf@mushhaven.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, Oleg Ogurok <oleg@ogurok.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: which branch? Message-ID: <38D1C75D.AEC542C2@gorean.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003161449360.83199-100000@ogurok.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003161156230.63685-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000316122126.A90676@mushhaven.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jamie Norwood wrote:
> -STABLE is supposed to be safe to put on a server. If 4.x is .not. yet
> safe... Why is it in -STABLE? This kinda bugs me as it fairly well defeats
> the point of having a -STABLE if it isn't, in fact, stable.
This happens every version update cycle. During the 2.2.x -> 3.0 update
many of us asked for a new "description" of the "post new branch
pseudo-release" branch. Something like -DEVEL, which conveys that it's
not -CURRENT anymore, but not quite -STABLE either. It seems that
suggestion was ignored. :)
Doug
--
"While the future's there for anyone to change, still you know it seems,
it would be easier sometimes to change the past"
- Jackson Browne, "Fountain of Sorrow"
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?38D1C75D.AEC542C2>