From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 15 13:20:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mailbox1.ucsd.edu (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF9814F62 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:20:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjdawes@physics.ucsd.edu) Received: from physics.ucsd.edu (huntington.ucsd.edu [132.239.73.96]) by mailbox1.ucsd.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA01549; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by physics.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA18239; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:18:23 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:18:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard J. Dawes" X-Sender: rjdawes@huntington Reply-To: Richard Dawes To: Rahul Dhesi Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What do people think of May 1st for a 3.2 release date? In-Reply-To: <199903151103.AA17270@waltz.rahul.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Rahul Dhesi wrote: > [...] > Why not, instead, pick a level of software quality, and then follow > whatever release schedule it takes to achieve that? In my (admittedly minimal) experience, deadlines can sometimes be a prime motivator. ;-) > Ok, I understand that people using 3.0-RELEASE and 3.1-RELEASE might > need some urgent bug fixes. Intermediate bug-fix releases could still > occur, called by names such as 3.x-SNAP or 3.x-INTERIM. > [...] I just had a similar idea. (See separate mail, "An Idea".) --Rich ======================================== Richard J. Dawes rdawes@ucsd.edu ======================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message