Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:12:36 -0800 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: Richard Caley <richard@caley.org.uk> Cc: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <3DD90364.306@tenebras.com> References: <3DD8FD2B.8A95364E@ene.asda.gr> <200211181458.gAIEwlJP027099@pele.r.caley.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Caley wrote: > Basicly, you can't have somethign which is stable and which gets fixed > quickly, the two aims are in opposition. Something which gets fixed quickly is one definition of stability -- the addition of new features is its opposite. Deciding when a proposed change is defect correction and when it belongs in the next release is the tricky part. Julian Elischer made the point some time ago that it is helpful to continue to support critical fixes to older revs precisely because those folks are using FreeBSD. Pretend we have seats, i.e., customers. Pretend that there are folks out there who aren't hobbyists. From my perspective, the current stable branch is RELENG_4_7, you can go on abusing the language any way you like. OTOH 2.2.8 and 3.5.1 are very stable, just more limited in usefulness. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DD90364.306>