Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 08:49:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Message-ID: <199504200649.IAA02111@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199504200012.UAA07776@hda.com> from "Peter Dufault" at Apr 19, 95 08:12:06 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Peter Dufault wrote: > > > > We should look at X.Y.Z releases every N months (3?) (2.5?) > > > > I think, 3 months have been the initial intent of WC for regular > > releases... > > I think 6 month releases with 3 month bug fix releases (4 releases > per year) would be great and almost impossible to actually do, and > would be a good target. Hmm, it's perhaps a question of naming. I think the Berkeley tradition was to have even-numbered releases with lots of new stuff and odd-numbered releases which have been mainly bugfix releases. (I dunno if this has been intention or not.) However, _every_ release should be of some basic quality that's better than say the average ***x release quality. We all know about 2.0, but it should remain an exception. Yeah, what makes our job for 2.1 so hard is the fact that 1.1.5.1 was of such a quality that it beats many commercial systems -- and we want to have 2.1 at least as stable as 1.1.5.1. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504200649.IAA02111>