Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:15:51 -0300 From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Message-ID: <200612221015.51709.joao@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <200612221343.21237.lofi@freebsd.org> References: <000801c723bb$efc2b540$260ba8c0@wii.wintecind.com> <200612220259.kBM2xYxc019408@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <200612221343.21237.lofi@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 22 December 2006 09:43, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Friday, 22. December 2006 03:59, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > spork@bway.net writes: > > >-5.x was never really for production use, in the same way 3.x never > > >was. > > > > Why do people continue to say this? > > Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. Just li= ke > .0 and .1 releases are rushed out the door after a few months of mad > hackfest and patches being rushed back and forth on kernel.org. Smirk. man, if that really is so then it has an easy solution, don't make 7. but m= ake=20 8. ... :) but the better "believe" would be in better work instead of blaming odd=20 release numbers =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200612221015.51709.joao>