From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 19:11: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from gw.nectar.com (gw.nectar.com [208.42.49.153]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147C437B719; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:11:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.com) Received: by gw.nectar.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8588B1938A; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:11:06 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:11:06 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: John Baldwin Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Message-ID: <20010316211106.A34611@spawn.nectar.com> References: <20010316173503T.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 06:14:29PM -0800 X-Url: http://www.nectar.com/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 06:14:29PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > If 2% of our -stable userbase doesn't get it, then I'm not sure that > is justification for axeing it. This is even documented and announced > on the lists for crying out loud. :) Along these lines ... am I the only one who thinks that the branch _needs_ to be called BETA at this time? With all the MFCs that inevitably hit near release, a little more caution than usual is required by those tracking -STABLE. IMHO, of course. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message