Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:46:13 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: when does CURRENT fork with 4-STABLE? Message-ID: <200001251846.NAA11580@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001251324001.528-100000@cornflake.nickelkid.com> (jooji@nickelkid.com) References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001251324001.528-100000@cornflake.nickelkid.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:29:33 -0500 (EST) > From: "Jasper O'Malley" <jooji@nickelkid.com> > cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > In the past, -stable has only moved to a new branch *months* after the > > first release from that branch. The '-stable' designation isn't moved > > until the branch is, well, stable. Giving it time to settle out, as > > it were. This was the case on 3.0, on 2.2.1, on 2.1.0. In the private e-mail that "Mick" is quoting here, I also said that I *had* heard (in some of Jordan's messages) that -stable would be moved over much more quickly than in past transitions. I was trying to figure out if he (Mick) had better information than I, and it turned out that the answer was 'no.' Maybe someone who *does* know what they're talking about will speak up eventually. Mr. O'Malley and I don't seem to qualify. At least on the pedantic point -- for most people's purposes, though, the fact that there will continue to be a 3-STABLE (and releases from it) long after there is a 4-STABLE is more important than which one is "really" -STABLE. Be well. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001251846.NAA11580>