From owner-freebsd-security  Thu Oct  5 16:37:17 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4654437B66D; Thu,  5 Oct 2000 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2])
	by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18801;
	Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:37:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005173257.048b9f00@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:36:56 -0600
To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: Stable branch 
Cc: developers@freebsd.org, security@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200010051830.MAA01024@harmony.village.org>
References: <Your message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:03:42 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost>
 <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost>
 <20001004220906.D50210@dragon.nuxi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 12:30 PM 10/5/2000, Warner Losh wrote:

>Otherwise would do a PR spin with the following patch to 3.x would do
>the trick (I'd call it -solid, because -stable is suitable for
>production machines).

Personally, I would equate "-SOLID" with "suitable for production 
machines" whereas -STABLE would be "OK for application developers
and eager/early adopters but still settling down to the confidence 
level of -SOLID."

Which might imply setting things up so that the -STABLE branch
becomes -SOLID after, say, a good .2 release.

--Brett



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message