Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:37:10 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> To: "'mupi@Mknet.org'" <mupi@Mknet.org> Cc: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <01C0FF2F.CC0FB0A0.wmoran@iowna.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:14 PM, Mike Porter [SMTP:mupi@mknet.org] wrote: > On Wednesday 27 June 2001 09:44, Bill Moran wrote: > > Is there a reason why you took this off the list? > > > my mistake (or my mailer's depending on how you look at it). If the > majordomo config file for the list included the line "reply-to: > stable@freebsd.org" then all replies would by defualt go back to the list. > While this isn't ALWAYS appropriate, it usually is.... No problem. I expected as such ... looking back, I had intended that question to mean "Should I not be posting to -STABLE" but then I *did* post to -STABLE so it was pretty silly to bring it up at all ... <snipped much reasonable and well-though discussion, because the last paragraph of your reply makes a point the nullifies most of the argument> > I agree, but I think that putting things in terms people can understand is > also important, and mentioning something along the lines of the above > paragraph might help some people better undrstand the relationship between > -current, -stable, and -release. To take all the specifics out and state my opinion in one general comment. The statement you make above is the exact reason I don't think that beta is a good name. Folks are used to seeing the label beta on some sort of static release that they can test and compare (beta1, beta2, etc) Whereas -STABLE is a constantly moving target. If you looked into it, there would be what? 20,000 possible versions of 4.3-STABLE so far? And you can grab any one of those versions if you want (like if you know a certain feature appeared after a certain date, but a certain bug didn't appear till a certain date) This is the biggest divergence from a beta type software that I see. > On the other hand.....I seem to recall the initial post in this sub-thread > was something like "if we are taking votes...." 1) I don't think we really > are taking votes and 2) even if we were, I think the majority by their > failure to chime in is indicating their general pleasure with the status quo. True. Considering the core team hasn't asked for a vote, I assume that they either know what they want to do, or they plan to discuss it amoung themselves. I will agree that -STABLE is somewhat misleading. If we had a single word that meant "conservative development", that would be the perfect label for that branch. I still think that beta is not that word, but as you put it, there seems to be general pleasure with the status quo. -Bill 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?01C0FF2F.CC0FB0A0.wmoran>