Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:47:39 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Hetzels@aol.com Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <l03110702b05f08764975@[204.69.236.50]> In-Reply-To: <971006161539_1833122661@emout16.mail.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hetzels@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 97-10-06 14:28:35 EDT, chad@freebie.dcfinc.com writes: > >> > Well, I would still get rid of the "-STABLE". I would also use Zulu time >> > and convert it all to a number. Thus >> > >> > "FreeBSD 2.2 (9710050245)" > >I would keep the CURRENT & STABLE tags. As some one has mentioned, how can >you know if they are running CURRENT or STABLE. What difference does it make? You are running 2.2 as of (whenever). To NAME a system on the basis of its STATUS is bogus. Nothing magic happened to the 2.2 code when someone decided to declare it "STABLE". Just one update earlier, it was just as stable. Further, declaring 2.2 "STABLE" did not make 2.1 go away. It is still around. IMHO, people should think of "STABLE" as an alias to conveniently find the most current system to have reached that level of maturity. Once they have selected some system, they no longer should care what level of maturity it has reached. The system either works for them or it does not. Having anyone place a label on it is not going to affect that. BTW, by the time that 3.0 goes BETA, I expect our great team of developers to already be working on features that did not make the 3.0 cut. "CURRENT" (although I would prefer a different name) will belong to this new development. We all know that there will have to be some time between the time that 3.0.0-RELEASE comes out and the time that it can, in good faith be declared "STABLE". What are you going to call the first update after 3.0.0-RELEASE? Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110702b05f08764975>