From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Nov  8 15:59:31 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA29722
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:59:31 -0800
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA29712
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:59:24 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA29763; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 15:58:55 -0800
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 1995 11:09:56 CST."
             <m0tDE0a-000IDUC@venus.mcs.com> 
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 15:58:55 -0800
Message-ID: <29760.815875135@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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?

No, -stable was always "2.1 in production and beyond."  While we haven't
reached 2.1 I suppose it's accurate to say that it's "less than 2.1",
but that won't hold true much longer (I hope! :-).

> For a production system, STABLE has been ok for us -- is this the continuing
> recommendation?

Definitely.

					Jordan