From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 7 5:12:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from www.menzor.org (themoonismadeofgreenchease.dk [195.249.147.160]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD2014F4E for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:12:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from morten@seeberg.dk) Received: from SOS (gw.danadata.com [194.239.79.3]) by www.menzor.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA18173; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:29:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from morten@seeberg.dk) Message-ID: <036901bf40b4$5573b300$1600a8c0@SOS> Reply-To: "Morten Seeberg" From: "Morten Seeberg" To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" , References: Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:09:37 +0100 Organization: SWAMP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.5600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Since 3.0 has been out for about a year, why not make more "RELEASE" > > versions during a year? Or just freeze a few snapshots during the STABLE > > branch? > Given a 30 day beta period on each release I think that time does not > permit more than three or four releases per year. Freezing snapshots doesn't > really help unless they are also heavily tested. Revising the release times for 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 I know realise that I´ve just misunderstood the way -STABLE works :) And that I should just start using RELEASE on my production machines, instead of -STABLE, which I thought was "better"/"more stable" than RELEASE. Thanx to Steve and Reinier. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message