From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 7 16:39:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from intergate.luciamar.k12.ca.us (intergate.luciamar.k12.ca.us [209.129.95.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF82152AA for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:39:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dknapp@luciamar.k12.ca.us) Received: from luciamar.k12.ca.us (intergate.luciamar.k12.ca.us [209.129.95.252]) by intergate.luciamar.k12.ca.us (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13736 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37337A30.2DF8756@luciamar.k12.ca.us> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:41:36 -0700 From: David Knapp X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stability concerns in latest -STABLEs. References: <001201be98bd$29db4770$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG David Schwartz wrote: > > What it seems to be is a rush to get patches into STABLE before a freeze > causing stable to be less stable than usual. I hate to suggest another layer > of abstraction, but perhaps STABLE should be 'frozen' for a bit near a > freeze so causal STABLE users get actually STABLE code. I'm a newbie, so maybe I don't understand, but why not go with 3.1 RELEASE? Shouldn't it be more stable or as stable as 3.1-STABLE? dbk -- David Knapp PC Network Specialist LMUSD 805 473-4390 ext 426 FreeBSD Newbie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message