Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>