Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 22:03:24 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Drew Tomlinson <drew@mykitchentable.net>, bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Difference between RELENG_* and RELENG_*_BP Message-ID: <3CD21A1C.1040304@tenebras.com> References: <200205030344.g433i7b88531@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <20020502212358.A28915@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote: >>I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a >>branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice >>IMNSHO. > > > DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed over more > times then are worth counting on various mailing lists which are fully > archived. If you really care go read the flamewars there, don't start > them on the list. The signal to noise ratio is bad enough without this > junk. That's right, let's not make any mention of the pink hippo in the living room. The nomenclature is fup duck. It should be changed. Just because there's a historical explanation for abusing the language doesn't mean it should be perpetuated. Bad semantics could definitely be considered noise. -STABLE is unstable (or potentially so). -SECURITY (which isn't really a tag) is what most people think of when they lex the term "stable." Squelching the insightful newcomer is the sign of disease. 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?3CD21A1C.1040304>