From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Nov 13 21:40:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from earth.wnm.net (earth.wnm.net [208.246.240.243]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7930E37B479 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 21:40:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (alex@localhost) by earth.wnm.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAE5hCI67135 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:43:12 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:43:12 -0600 (CST) From: Alex Charalabidis To: FreeBSD Questions Subject: From STABLE to BETA Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm really curious as to why STABLE became BETA and not RC before the pending RELEASE. STABLE, by definition, != beta, is it? Just when I thought we had settled on a consistent naming scheme, someone finds the time to throw a wrench in the works... I'm having a hard time telling people to install STABLE (which I prefer to recommend) when they end up with BETA and come back asking why the hell I made them install a beta. [And try telling management why your latest "upgrade" resulted in a (shriek) "beta."] It just doesn't look good. -ac -- ============================================================== Alex Charalabidis (AC8139) 5050 Poplar Ave, Ste 170 System Administrator Memphis, TN 38157 WebNet Memphis (901) 432 6000 Author, The Book of IRC http://www.bookofirc.com/ ============================================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message