Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:30:20 +0100 From: Andrew Boothman <andrew@cream.org> To: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE? Message-ID: <01080304302005.00395@spatula.home> In-Reply-To: <20010802190716.A7770@freeway.dcfinc.com> References: <01080300314100.00395@spatula.home> <01080301194203.00395@spatula.home> <20010802190716.A7770@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 03 August 2001 3:07 am, Chad R. Larson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 01:19:42AM +0100, Andrew Boothman wrote: > > I prefer -SECURITY, because it makes it clear this is the branch > > dedicated to security fixes and nothing else. > > Yes, but then the newbies would think this was some special release > with extra security features. And complain when they get rooted. > We go through "why isn't -STABLE really stable" three or four times > per year. Agreed. Bloody newbies :-) But won't -SOLID have roughly the same sort of problems? People will think it is somehow more solid than -STABLE. I can see the questions now, "What is the difference between a -SOLID and a -STABLE machine?" :-) I don't think -SOLID really says security fixes. It says stability fixes to me, of which security fixes are just a part. My vote is still on -SECURITY. You'll never find a name that is all things to all people. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01080304302005.00395>