Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 19:59:14 -0400 From: Eric Ogren <eogren@earthlink.net> To: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> Cc: Omachonu Ogali <oogali@intranova.net>, Brennan W Stehling <brennan@offwhite.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <20000513195914.B11952@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005131433150.121-100000@rac5.wam.umd.edu>; from culverk@wam.umd.edu on Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:35:34PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10005130735370.20100-100000@hydrant.intranova.net> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005131433150.121-100000@rac5.wam.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:35:34PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: > Alright, this is how it works. 3.x-STABLE is STILL the only TRUELY Stable > tree. the x.0 releases are meant to be releases which iron some stuff out, > and when the x.1 release comes out, that is when the tree becomes -STABLE. > PLEASE stop spreading this rumour about 4.0 not being ready for true use. As has been said by both committers and non-committers, 4.0-RELEASE is nothing at all like 3.0-RELEASE, and it is ready for use. Also, if you read cvs-all, you would notice that the majority of changes get MFC'd ONLY to 4-STABLE; although there are certainly still commits to RELENG_3, it's not the "actively developed" -STABLE branch anymore. > > -Stable progresses along with bugfixes and minor added features from > -CURRENT, and every so often a -RELEASE is taken as a snapshot from > -STABLE and given a new version number. -Current takes on the next major > revision number, but usually doesn't come out for a year to a year and a > half. > Nod. Just because there is a 5.0-CURRENT doesn't mean that there isn't going to be at least a 4.1-RELEASE and a 4.2-RELEASE. Eric To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000513195914.B11952>