Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:07:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> To: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0107292106400.7317-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20010723095250.B66779-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote:
> > It seems to me that it would be in the very best interest of
> > FreeBSD to apply whatever quality controls are appropriate to
> > ensure that "stable" means what it says.
>
> You're checking out the head of a development tree. It will never
> be stable in your sense. As mentioned before it might theoretically
> be best to rename "stable" but it needs a volunteer (you?) to do the
> work to fix all the breakage which will result.
>
> > Do you seriously expect
> > all users to go thru the testing procedures enumerated below?
>
> Then use a point release with the security patches applied.
I.e., track RELENG_4_3 instead of RELENG_4.
--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "bogus" before responding.)
behanna@bogus.zbzoom.net
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
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?Pine.BSF.4.32.0107292106400.7317-100000>