From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Nov 25 10:10:48 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from workhorse.iMach.com (workhorse.iMach.com [206.127.77.89]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C74814F6E for ; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:10:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from forrestc@workhorse.iMach.com) Received: from localhost (forrestc@localhost) by workhorse.iMach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA21734; Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:58:15 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:58:14 -0700 (MST) From: "Forrest W. Christian" To: Marcin Cieslak Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: speaking of 3.4... In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Marcin Cieslak wrote: > But I'd prefer having one or two development tracks (-stable,-current) > and not diverting into many directions, like Cisco does. > If you want to have ssh, you have to use 12.0(X)S release. > But you this may not support all your hardware, supported in 12.0(7)X-whatever. What I'd propose is one additional "track". Basically: -current (all the latest greatest experimental). -stable (all the latest gretest "Stable" stuff). -missioncritical (conservative release, once a year or so - only bug fixes after release). > If you'd rather stay with "General Deployment" - go with -stable. The problem is that -stable is not necessarily "General Deployment". The difference between -stable and "-missioncritical" would be that -stable gets new features - and -missioncritical gets more stable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message