From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 17 07:44:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA15840 for current-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:44:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from X2296 (ppp1570.on.sympatico.ca [206.172.249.34]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA15819; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by X2296 (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00281; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek Reply-To: ac199@freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Matthew Thyer , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-OS: FreeBSD 2.2 X-Mailer: Pine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > Matthew Thyer 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?!