From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Nov  8 09:47:05 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id JAA12593
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:47:05 -0800
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA12587
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:47:03 -0800
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id JAA02906
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:47:02 -0800
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA00297; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:45:44 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA00212; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:45:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199511081745.JAA00212@corbin.Root.COM>
To: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl@mcs.com>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Impact of upcoming 2.1 release on the STABLE branch? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 95 11:09:56 CST."
             <m0tDE0a-000IDUC@venus.mcs.com> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 09:44:47 -0800
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> >Anyone know what it is?  What will STABLE be after this release goes?
>> 
>>    For awhile (months), it will continue to be the 2.1 sources. We are
>> planning a 2.1.5 (perhaps 2.1.1 - we haven't decided yet what to call it)
>> release sometime during the first quarter of '96.
>> 
>> -DG
>
>Wait a second...
>
>I thought that STABLE was something *less than* 2.1?  So once 2.1 "ships",
>then STABLE will be 2.1 as-is, plus perhaps patches?

   That's correct. We're just planning to release this next year as a stop-gap
for the long delays we're expecting in the 2.2 release cycle. It should be
almost entirely a bugfix release.

>I'm trying to figure out which copy to SUP here and maintain locally.  I
>haven't used CURRENT, as that is by definition at times not even compilable.
>
>For a production system, STABLE has been ok for us -- is this the continuing
>recommendation?

   Yes.

-DG