From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 29 16:33:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22340 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA22333 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:33:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01188; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:30:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199810300030.QAA01188@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Brian Feldman cc: John Hay , Garrett Wollman , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6 in -current In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:24:34 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:30:12 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > It would look Really Good on, say, 3.1-RELEASE release notes to say: > * Full IPv6 implementation in-kernel and libc! > Just a thought :) It would suck, however, if the consensus was that we rushed the integration just to get the check-mark item. The people in the driving seat are acutely aware of the pros and cons, and I'm inclined to accept their judgement (while also accepting that supportive noise from the userbase such as yours is also *extremely* valuable). -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message