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>