Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Matthew Thyer <thyerm@satech.net.au>, current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970317103846.233A-100000@X2296> In-Reply-To: <l03010d00af530ba53a97@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > Matthew Thyer <thyerm@satech.net.au> writes: > > >This is ridiculous. > > > >FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! > > It is equally correct to say -- > > 2.2 is the current release. > 3.x is currently under development. > > It all boils down to the semantic interpretation. I'm not sure how much interpretation is necessary. There are three concurrent branches. -STABLE, -RELEASE, and -CURRENT. All three of these branches are, in fact, _current_. The problem is introduced when people confuse "current" with -CURRENT. You may attach whatever version numbering you wish. > For those "in the know" we could call the head of the > development tree "Rapsody" or "Bliss" or "Danger" or > "Development" or "3.0" or any other code name. We could then mount a large PR campaign, hype the product immensly, and never actual release it. :-) > For those who do not "know", "current" is misleading > because they typically want the "CURRENT RELEASE". The problem is when people relax their standards and say "current" when they mean "-CURRENT". -- tIM...HOEk Who's been messing with my anti-paranoi shot?!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970317103846.233A-100000>