Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:25:16 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Andre Oppermann <oppermann@pipeline.ch>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/3.0-19980923-BETA/ Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809241320350.27711-100000@bright.fx.genx.net> In-Reply-To: <199809241550.XAA21409@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'd prefer cvs-current and cvs-stable to numbered ones or we'll have > > to rename lists at the roll-over rather than simply transitioning the > > topics of discussion accordingly. > > Yes, but what about 2.2-stable and 3.0-stable and 3.1-current? :-) > > I seriously doubt that 2.2 branch development will just end because 3.0 is > released and becomes (at some point) the canonical -stable branch. 2.1.x > hung around for quite a while after 2.2 became 2.2-STABLE. not that i really have a voice in this, but i think 2.1.x went away because the freebsd team decided that it was too much to deal with. (3 trees) besideds, a make world of 3.0 source on 2.2.x should still work no? although you get certain "benifits" perl5, bind8... etc.. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809241320350.27711-100000>