Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:45:08 -0000 (GMT) From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Subject: Re: Voxware is toast. Get used to it. (Re: Suggestions for impro Message-ID: <XFMail.000322094508.steveo@eircom.net> In-Reply-To: <00032119450200.18784@nomad.dataplex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22-Mar-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>> Actually, the problem is that we ARE now doing good quality "dot-zero"
>> releases
>
> IMHO, the problen is not so much the -RELEASE as it is the -STABLE which
> preceeded it. I think we should continue to call 4.0 -CURRENT for a while and
> change it to -STABLE only when we have enough tire kicking that we can, in
> confidence, tell anyone to install it on their production system. (Perhaps
> just
> before 4.1 comes out).
Alternative naming suggestion :
3.X -SOLID
4.X -STABLE
5.X -CURRENT
The basis of this is that since 3.0 there have really been three
tracks nearly all the time with the oldest being the most suitable for 'fit and
forget' maximum reliablilty, the middle one for general use (with up to date
features and hardware support) and the newest (-CURRENT) bleeding as much as it
needs to for the sake of progress. Or aternatively viewed technology is
developed on -CURRENT, matured in -STABLE and hammered under -SOLID.
Then those that think -STABLE isn't good enough can be pointed to
-SOLID with clear implications in the naming. Last time I looked stable did not
necessarily carry the same sort of implications as solid.
OK, so it's a daft idea.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000322094508.steveo>