From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jun 14 02:39:40 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA25623
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from public.bta.net.cn (public.bta.net.cn [202.96.0.97])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA25530;
          Fri, 14 Jun 1996 02:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from robinson@localhost) by public.bta.net.cn (8.6.8.1/8.6.9) id RAA12045; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:39:10 +0800
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:39:10 +0800
From: Michael Robinson <robinson@public.bta.net.cn>
Message-Id: <199606140939.RAA12045@public.bta.net.cn>
To: nate@sri.MT.net, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view
Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org,
        hackers@FreeBSD.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that -stable
>is known to be buildable.

No.  The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that kernel 
panics are antagonistic to getting real work done.  Some people (such as
myself) depend on FreeBSD to do real work.  Some people (so far, not myself)
need bug fixes or new features as part of doing real work, and would rather
not wait 15 months between releases.

>If -current were known to be buildable,
>it would support the argument for getting rid of -stable.

If release-quality code could be packaged every three months, *that* would
support the argument for getting rid of -stable.

	-Michael Robinson