Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:31:54 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: panics? Message-ID: <19970317093154.WS08508@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199703170805.KAA00928@shadows.aeon.net>; from mika ruohotie on Mar 17, 1997 10:05:15 %2B0200 References: <199703170805.KAA00928@shadows.aeon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As mika ruohotie wrote: > while i post, to me it sounds a nice idea to twiddle the naming like it > was suggested... > > 2.1.x stable > 2.2.x current > 3.0.x future (experimental?) Well, we've been referring to the experimental stuff as -current for all the time. I'm afraid it's simply too late switching paradigms now, since it would confuse the hell out of the users. -current has been declared to be experimental, even though it was often a fairly stable system, too. Right now it isn't (and it certainly won't be again for a while, we need to push new stuff into the tree in order to get it debugged before 3.0 can be done). 2.2 should become 2.2-stable. The tag `-stable' never really meant that the system was stable at all :), i remember that 2.1-stable was often less stable than (2.2)-current, due to being less used for some time. There's no conflict in keeping the name 2.1-stable for this branch as well, although, as 2.2-stable will mature, it will probably really finally die, as has been predicted so many times now. :) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970317093154.WS08508>