From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jul 15 16:00:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA29881 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 16:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA29876; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 16:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA26689; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:00:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33CC08A3.41C67EA6@prima.ruhr.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 17:53:13 -0500 To: Philipp Reichmuth From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: mw fails even more... Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD Questions Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 6:32 PM -0500 7/15/97, Philipp Reichmuth wrote: >At CTM #0345, my make world ... Gentlemen (and Ladies), Let me remind you that there are at least three versions of the OS that are sharing CTM distribution and the mailing lists. Personally, I like the idea of using the CTM delta number to indicate a minor revision level. However, PLEASE designate which series it is taken from. (Is this 2.1, 2.2, or cur ?) Yes, I know that this instance is not src-cur because the number is not in the thousands. However, the distinction between the other two is not so obvious. They both have low generation numbers. On a more global scale, I would like to advocate that we eliminate the "stable" mailing list in favor of a 2.1 list and a 2.2 list and a 3.0 list and ... a ("current", if you must) development list. To borrow from the Terry-Nate debate, "stable" is a run-state, not the system designation. IF this idea is acceptable, we could migrate toward it by creating the appropriate lists and using aliases during a transition interval.