Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:11:56 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: proff@suburbia.net (Julian Assange), sos@FreeBSD.org, rkw@dataplex.net, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Nothing to do with PERL, time to change the subject. Message-ID: <24425.848722316@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:27:16 MST." <199611230027.RAA16284@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If there were a difference between "core-current" and "core-stable" > and/or "committers-current" and "committers-stable", I might agree > with you that the -current vs -stable dichotomy addresses the issue. There is one HECK of a lot of difference. Committers may commit freely to -current, given reasonable standards for code quality (e.g. it has to be a step forward and it has to compile - nobody would settle for less). Committers may NOT freely commit to -stable or any release branch under development. It may be technologically possible, but definitely not allowed or encouraged. > The only difference between the two at present, however, is the value > of a branch tag. You're not even close. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24425.848722316>