From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Apr 20 14:04:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA16614 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmv.mitsumine.co.jp (ns1.ris.co.jp [202.233.13.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA16594 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from kino@localhost) by fmv.mitsumine.co.jp (8.8.3/8.6.12) id GAA00199; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:04:20 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 06:04:20 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <199704202104.GAA00199@fmv.mitsumine.co.jp> From: Masaya Kinoshita To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is there a perceived need for a 2.1.8 release? In-Reply-To: Jay D. Nelson's message of Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:54:27 -0500 (CDT) References: <17971.861382575@time.cdrom.com> <199704201425.XAA00204@fmv.mitsumine.co.jp> Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Actually, I'm inclined to agree. If Walnut Creek doesn't wan't additional >> inventory, why not scrap the live filesystem on disk 2 and deliver 2.1.x >> instead? Mnn, it worries. It is sometimes convenient when there is The live filesystem, too, too. However, it does the mood which doesn't have necessity, too, because there is mtree. It thinks that this, too, is a good idea. Of being again. Masaya Kinoshita (PXI14346@niftyserve.or.jp ) (mkino@po.iijnet.or.jp )