From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jul 23 8:34:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (snafu.adept.org [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4069C37B407 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 436059EE06; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8B49B00C; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:34:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: "A. L. Meyers" Cc: Max Khon , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? In-Reply-To: <20010723140335.S99402-100000@localhost.consult-meyers.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: > do you suggest that if someone wants "stable-stable" not just > "stable" he should cvsup RELENG_4_3 instead of RELENG_4? I suggest you spend half the time reading documentation and trying to actually understand the FreeBSD build hierarchy you do posting messages here about what 'stable' is and/or what -STABLE should be called. (No offense, but this thread is a dead horse. If you'd take a few seconds to search past list archives, you'd already know that.) Later, -Mike -- Log analysis mailing list: http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message