Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:02:36 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>, hackmiester@hackmiester.com Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <4509A74C.5060507@cs.tu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <6AF9F647-881A-448F-933C-743D295400B3@khera.org> References: <20060909173813.GA1388@FS.denninger.net> <45065C67.6040503@cs.tu-berlin.de> <C9F971C5-50FE-4BF0-9975-83E8072E6C3F@hackmiester.com> <6AF9F647-881A-448F-933C-743D295400B3@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Vivek Khera schrieb: > > On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:23 PM, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote: > >>> -STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable >>> and working operating system. >> >> >> Hahahahaha... That's ironic... > > > No, just misinterpretation of which attribute of the system to which > the word "stable" applies. > Do you really think I misinterpreted the meaning of -STABLE? *I* think most people misinterprete -STABLE because the first thing that comes to mind is runtime stability. The same issue exists in the GNU/Debian Linux world: Debian stable doesn't mean that the system run always rock-solid and works perfectly, but rather the state of software is stable, i.e. maintainers ensure 100% compatibility between updates. Regards Björn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4509A74C.5060507>