Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:16:40 -0600
From:      "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz>
To:        "Lefteris Tsintjelis" <lefty@ene.asda.gr>, "Peter Hoskin" <peterh@ripewithdecay.com>
Cc:        "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, "Hununu" <hununu@netcabo.pt>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?
Message-ID:  <006601c28ddf$604010f0$fa00a8c0@DaleCoportable>
References:  <20021117115616.T301-100000@extortion.peterh.dropbear.id.au> <3DD6EEA0.AD524CA2@ene.asda.gr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Lefteris Tsintjelis" <lefty@ene.asda.gr>
To: "Peter Hoskin" <peterh@ripewithdecay.com>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>; "Hununu"
<hununu@netcabo.pt>; <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?


> It sure is misleading. Why is it called -stable then? You would
expect
> to stand up to its name.
>
> Regards,
> Lefteris Tsintjelis
>

It depends on your point of view.  -CURRENT is noted as occasionally
being broken to the point that it won't even build.  The RELENG_4
branch (almost) always will.  From a -CURRENT point of view,
RELENG_4 is "stable."

However, to someone looking from the other direction, I can see
where it might be 'misleading.'  Perhaps it should have been called
"FUTURE" and "CURRENT", instead.  But I'm not sure that any
of the core team or committers would consider themselves 'prophets.'
;-)

<include disclaimer.h>
I'm just a guy who 'uses' -STABLE.
None of the opinions herein are the opinions of anyone but me.
</include>

Kevin Kinsey
DaleCo, S.P.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?006601c28ddf$604010f0$fa00a8c0>