From owner-freebsd-stable  Mon Mar 17 16:14:03 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA14664
          for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA14657
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA09122; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:13:22 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199703180013.RAA09122@rover.village.org>
To: "David E. Tweten" <tweten@frihet.com>
Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists 
Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>,
        Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>,
        Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, stable@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST."
		<199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> 
References: <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com>  
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:13:21 -0700
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> "David E. Tweten" writes:
: 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?"

Ummm, How about stagnant, stable and current?

-stable was originally chosen as the name because things were getting
just too unstable in -current and it was supposed to represent a
reliable, safe version to run.  Now that 2.2 is out, it should shortly
replace the -2.1.x based -stable with a new 2.2 based -stable.
-stable doesn't mean unchanging, just "ready for prime time."

2.1.x should be allowed to die quietly once 2.2 has proven its worth.
There is nothing magical about the 2.1.x source base, and it has
become quite musty over the last two years that 2.2 has been under
development.  The process of vetting 2.2 will likely take a month or
so due to the extensive testing that happened to the 2.2 release
before it was released.

Warner