From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jun  7 16:56:55 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA05781
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA05775;
          Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17189; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@ki.net>
cc: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl@mcs.com>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.de>,
        hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
        FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:05:32 EDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.93.960607144806.25123A-100000@ki.net> 
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 16:56:29 -0700
Message-ID: <17187.834191789@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 	Again, isn't this what Jordan is doing with his -SNAPs...stating
> that at this point in time, it is felt that -current has proven to be
> stable enough to make an install kit out of?

Uh, no. :-)

I produce SNAPs when there's something we want to _test_, not because
they signifify stability milestones (in fact, if something really
contraversial and in need of testing has just gone in, I'm prone to
make a SNAP of it).

					Jordan