From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct 17 01:33:18 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA15960
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA15953
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA01189; Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199610170831.BAA01189@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>
cc: dg@Root.COM, Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>,
        Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, jdw@wwwi.com,
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:51:11 +0300."
             <Pine.BSF.3.91.961017104643.17620A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:31:44 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>From The Desk Of Narvi :
> 
> 
> On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I think that it will be wise to release 2.2 soon. It is getting uncomfortab
le
> > for both users or ISPs and developers.
> 
> Soon? If something even remotedly stable is to be released, then IMHO a 
> new branch should be created soon and 2.2.0-prerelease-stable put up for 
> testing for say ~1.5 - 2 months? If people can say yeah, it's stable, it 
> has been out for quite some time then we can make the release and be 
> comfort - most people will see long uptimes and the image of FreeBSD as a 
> stable OS will remain.
> 
> 	Sander
> 

I got to admit that 2.2 is not that stable at the moment : 
no crashes  over here.

But of course it needs more exposure as a "stable" release branch
my point is that is not currently considered so and hence it will
continue to be so till the core teams deems that their goals have
been met and the "branch" is considerd "stable".

At any rate, this is not a big issue with me since I don't have a 2.1.5 
system nor the personal resources to support 2.1.5 8)

	Cheers,
	Amancio