Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:44:44 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <l03010504ae8b2f897d3b@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <32655A42.15FB7483@whistle.com> References: <199610161850.LAA05089@wwwi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> replies to Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse: >here is the way I see it.. >2.1.x was needed to give us the time to get 2.2 over some major hurdles. >we did this ONLY because of the users. > >2.2 is close enough now that we are going to 'cut and run' >hopefully that will take about the same amount of time as it would to >make a new release of 2.1.7 or something.. >2.1.6 will exist as a patches only version of 2.1.5 in the interim. That is appropriate development migration. We must progress. However, we should not totally abandon 2.1.x until 2.2.y has PROVEN to to reliable. >when 2.2 goes out the door there will be a feature freeze >for sure.. call it beta or alpha or whatever.. it's the same thing.. IMHO, it's not the same thing if 2.2.0 is as unstable as 2.1.0 was. I would need to wait for 2.1.1 (or will you persist in calling it 2.2.5?). However, I think that calling "beta" level code "release" lowers the opinion that "commercial types" have of our effort. As Terry mentioned in another message, one of the primary reasons to release code under BSD license rather than GPL is the impact that it has on the commercial users. "Release" code should be quality code.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010504ae8b2f897d3b>