From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jan 6 2:26: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.cvzoom.net (ns.cvzoom.net [208.226.154.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E002D154D8 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:25:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dmmiller@cvzoom.net) Received: (qmail 7957 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2000 10:25:59 -0000 Received: from lcm97.cvzoom.net (208.230.69.97) by ns.cvzoom.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2000 10:25:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:25:27 -0500 (EST) From: Donn Miller To: Julian Elischer Cc: Darren Reed , Yoshinobu Inoue , louie@TransSys.COM, committers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 4.0 code freeze scheduled for Jan 15th In-Reply-To: <38746AEC.167EB0E7@elischer.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Julian Elischer wrote: > I agree with this.. > I think that 4.0 is clsoe but it's just not there yet. > I think it needs IPV6 to have reached a better milestone, and certainly > the stuff that warner is doing (and others) needs to be a little > further down the track. I agree. Why rush 4.0-RELEASE out the door if it's "not there yet"? One possibility is to make our 4.0-current something like 3.9-RELEASE, and when everything has been added, release 4.0-RELEASE. 3.9-RELEASE would be a lot like 4.0-REL, only with some missing parts (such as IPV6 you just mentioned). That way, 3.9-REL would bear all the shortcomings of a release ending in 0, and when 4.0-REL comes out, it would be less buggy than most *.0 releases. (It would really be at the level of a *.1 release then.) - Donn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message