From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 20 13:51:58 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA09312
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:51:58 -0700
Received: from linus.demon.co.uk (linus.demon.co.uk [158.152.10.220])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA09299
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:51:43 -0700
Received: (from mark@localhost) by linus.demon.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA04025; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 21:24:27 +0100
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 21:24:27 +0100
From: Mark Valentine <mark@linus.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <199504202024.VAA04025@linus.demon.co.uk>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley.
Newsgroups: linus.freebsd.hackers
In-Reply-To: <MAILTONEWS950420170851.1815@linus.demon.co.uk>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter Dufault writes:
>                                                     I propose what
>Nate thought I proposed:  two real releases per year, with branches off
>the release where critical bug fixes were put, and if there were enough
>critical bug fixes a bug fix release as in 2.0.5.  When there are no bugs
>and not enough value added new non-kernel stuff, then skip the bug fix release.
>
>2.0   : Release
>2.0.? : Bug fix release
>2.1   : Release
>2.1.? : Bug fixes.

I think that this, in combination with Gene's suggestion of creating a
release from a branch off a "stable" snapshot, would be a real winner for
people wanting to use FreeBSD in earnest.  The snapshots and sup/ctm already
make life wonderful for those of us who can cope with life on the bleeding
edge, but truly stable releases are what enable us to recommend FreeBSD as
a solution in production environments.

		Mark.