From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 18 22:59:19 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953441065688;
	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:59:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from tomek.cedro@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.214.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAB08FC12;
	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:59:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bkbc12 with SMTP id c12so2403796bkb.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:59:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=nopmh/jn4hhmo1/ayvQDxNDg3HunBonZqLrtaVKs7RQ=;
	b=ColZ0BD2E/bZOfLtOfmcxwDcrUrMTkqWRFivDydYlnGDa4MbnDS0/cKMLsw8YkLVXH
	n03NkQZpuTuq/sPn+8KjQ7gDBNBM3zLq5VKMEp4PJ8wPED8hSWEn9aCtMtUcnYJfV/ru
	B5nnm1/ZAGYj4ffQeE2fDopzkU81g7R4kPYBg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.128.140 with SMTP id he12mr3112980bkc.76.1326927557046;
	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Sender: tomek.cedro@gmail.com
Received: by 10.204.149.198 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:59:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F173ADE.5030606@delphij.net>
References: <201201182118.q0ILIYaq079339@freefall.freebsd.org>
	<CAFYkXj=s_bOqEjxitGLz-cXMsebWaNqtRS2B2=ST4EzKk4oc3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F173ADE.5030606@delphij.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:59:16 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xmARi0ti7D3nRXauIvBpW2GV1Lg
Message-ID: <CAFYkXjnnoem1kU1Ae_GHJrFW7m1mHACHa+4nPn=s07Tbanv=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl>
To: d@delphij.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, delphij@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: misc/164290: FreeBSD 9.0 IS NOT YET PRODUCTION/STABLE
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:59:19 -0000

ok, maybe it would be more convenient to still mark 8.2 as production
and wait until most 9.0 issues are solved, then mark it as
production..? :-)

i always liked this logical consequence of freebsd, when something was
stable it was stable, otherwise it was devel. right now it seems to
mark devel as stable just as linux does which i dont like :-)

also i dont like changing the good stuff only to make things "new"
just as the bsdinsytall replaced good sysinstall. aren't there any
more important things to work on? :-)

best regards :-)
tomek

-- 
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info