Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:28:44 +1100 From: Matthew Thyer <thyerm@satech.net.au> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <332D470C.41C67EA6@satech.net.au> References: <l03010d04af523c207923@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is ridiculous. FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! of course 2.2 will mature into stable and 2.1 will disappear over time, but 3.X is here to stay. Most development seems to be done on 3.X and then duplicated on 2.X if appropriate. Many people such as I run 3.0 systems and find them very stable as long as we read the freebsd-current mailing list and choose our times to "make world". I for example have not touched my make world since Feb 9th and have a system that is working very nicely at ctm-src-cur delta #2722 Naturally you'd be a bit silly to run 3.X in your uptime critical big $$$ business but then thats your decision. Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > >Where do we send bug reports and comments on 2.2 now that 2.2 is > >released? In the past -stable was 2.1.*, and -current was > >anything/everything else. > > > >Inquiring minds would like to know? Should we state that 2.2 is now > >-stable material, since I suspect it's at least as stable as the 2.1.0 > >release. > > IMHO, we need to get away from the bifurcated view of systems. > 2.2 certainly has not yet proven itself enough to be a replacement > for 2.1. And, at the same time, the head branch is a different > development. > > If we MUST use the "current" tag to refer to any system, 2.2 is an > ideal candidate. I realize that there is the hysterical (historical?) > precedent that calls that "not yet ready for public view" 3.0 system > "current" although "future" might be more appropriate. > > I suggest that the best solution is to drop the status designations and > instead use the release family as the designation. 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. > That way it is clear which list is appropriate for a particular discussion. > > A small change in the majordomo setup could make the change easy for the > users. The mailing list for "stable" and traffic to it could be rerouted > to a new 2.1 list. The "current" list could be duplicated into both > the 2.2 and 3.0 lists. As people learn to direct traffic to a more specific > list, the old lists could be phased out. > > Until someone decides to change something in the mailing lists, I recommend > that things remain as they were. "stable" is 2.1. "current" is anything > more recent. However, "[2.2]" or [3.0]" in the subject would help sort > things. -- ======================================================================== @ Work: Matthew.Thyer@dsto.defence.gov.au @ Play: thyerm@satech.net.au ======================================================================== "If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." E. P. Tryon from "Nature" Vol.246 Dec.14, 1973
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?332D470C.41C67EA6>