From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Sep 16 15:07:02 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA00446
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:07:02 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA00439
          ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:06:57 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.34]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA05212; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:05:36 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id PAA01126; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:07:56 -0700
Message-Id: <199509162207.PAA01126@corbin.Root.COM>
To: paul@freebsd.org
cc: pete@sms.fi (Petri Helenius), current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Which SUP files are available and where ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 Sep 95 16:49:58 BST."
             <199509161549.QAA02952@server.netcraft.co.uk> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:07:55 -0700
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>In reply to Petri Helenius who said
>> 
>> David Greenman writes:
>>  > >
>>  > >  Ok, if this is the general consensus, when will 2.1 be available?
>>  > 
>>  >    "Soon". It's looking very good indeed.
>>  > 
>>  > -DG
>> 
>> Will there be 2.2-STABLE and 2.3-CURRENT after the 2.1-RELEASE happens?
>> I'm for this because I see it very valuable to have two branches of code
>> in addition to releases. -STABLE has proven it's right to exist, IMO.
>> 
>
>Me too. I know it's more work for David (or someone anyway) but it allows
>bug smashing to be done over a longer period and also, I'm running some
>critical machines now and the sig 11 problem would have floored me but I'm
>happy to run -stable branches and put up with occasional glitches. It means
>we can run the next potential release in real environemnts for longer
>periods than we have in the past.

   I generally like the idea of having the -stable branch, but as the one who
has been maintaining it for about 3 months now, I can say that it is a *lot*
of work and has resulted in me spending all of my energy on it. I haven't had
any time to do development of my own and I can say that I'll eventually get
burnt out if this becomes my singular job. SO: 2.1-stable will have a life
that will live beyond the 2.1 release. It will continue to be the "stable"
branch until we near the release date of 2.2 (say 6 weeks before the 2.2
release target), or in other words, 2.2-stable will come into existence as
soon as we switch new development to 2.3 (i.e. 2.3 becomes the 'HEAD'). I
really don't expect much to happen with the 2.1-stable source after the
release is made (barring unforeseen critical bugfixes).
   I'll let other people figure out what we're going to call the SUP targets.

-DG