From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jul 17 16:32:56 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 3467C37B786; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:32:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA79139; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:32:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:32:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: "Chad R. Larson" Cc: noor@comrax.com, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Latest RELENG_4. In-Reply-To: <200007172325.QAA16817@freeway.dcfinc.com> 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 Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Chad R. Larson wrote: > As I recall, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Chad R. Larson wrote: > > > >> As I recall, noor@comrax.com wrote: > >>> What is the latest FreeBSD-STABLE release, and is it stable enough > >>> for a productional system? > >> > >> Please remember that "STABLE" refers to the stability of the source > >> tree, not of the resulting running system. That is, you should not > >> see developmental work going on in -STABLE. > > > > Well, I claim this to be false: the targetted stability *is* of the > > resulting product. Of course, we sometimes make mistakes - but if you > > have *any* stability problems you should tell us!! > > Note that I didn't claim the -STABLE systems weren't stable. I just > said that the original questioner seemed to have misunderstood the > meaning of the tag. And I was claiming the same about you :-) 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