From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 17:47:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9169016A4CE for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:47:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D13843D5E for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:47:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1D36381; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:47:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82450-07; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:47:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44570637F; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:47:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4150693F.9090308@makeworld.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:47:43 -0500 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040915) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Curtis Vaughan References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.1.1 at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3 stable when? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:47:42 -0000 Curtis Vaughan wrote: > Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line? > > Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I worry > about upgrading to BETA5 or just wait till it goes stable? > > Curtis http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html -- Best regards, Chris An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.