Date: 17 Mar 97 15:29:32 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "David E. Tweten" <tweten@frihet.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <AF5313E0-14868F9@204.69.236.50>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 2:45 PM, David E. Tweten <mailto:tweten@ns.frihet.com> wrote: >Weighing in with my $0.02, ... >My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I >understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future >change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and will >continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 line >is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into oblivion, >shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It also >makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) >versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" I agree that those are good names for today. However, what was really appropriate a month ago? (The same cycle repeats every X months) At that time, 2.1 was "stable" and although reluctantly and slowly, still being supported. 2.2 was defined and in testing, but not yet released. At the same time, work for 3.0 had already begun on features which, it had already been decided, would not be in the 2.2 releases. This is an appropriate mix of ongoing development. Any naming convention should handle it as well as todays state where 2.2 is "just released, but not fully shaken out".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AF5313E0-14868F9>