Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:32:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Jay D. Nelson" <jdn@qiv.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970317180215.500A-100000@acp.qiv.com> In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry to add to the natter, but the naming scheme hasn't caused me any confusion at all. Unless you truly hope to get Joe 95 to consider FreeBSD (which strikes me like spitting into a 40 knot gale) I dont really care what you call the branches -- as long as something tells me what they are for. (I thought the handbook explained it quite well!) The one thing I would caution -- be sure that stable means stable. One of the reasons I am using FreeBSD is because I need to get other work done. I don't enjoy the 'patch of the day' cycle of development, nor can I afford it. The way things are has worked well for me. If 2.2 is _truly_ stable, then call it stable and move 2.1 to `legacy' or something. BTW -- I think abandoning 2.1 would be a mistake. Thanks for hearing me out. -- Jay [everything else snipped]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970317180215.500A-100000>