From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 16 21:49:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AD837BD2E; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:49:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21649; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:49:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <38D1C75D.AEC542C2@gorean.org> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:49:17 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT-0315 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamie Norwood Cc: Kris Kennaway , Oleg Ogurok , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: which branch? References: <20000316122126.A90676@mushhaven.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jamie Norwood wrote: > -STABLE is supposed to be safe to put on a server. If 4.x is .not. yet > safe... Why is it in -STABLE? This kinda bugs me as it fairly well defeats > the point of having a -STABLE if it isn't, in fact, stable. This happens every version update cycle. During the 2.2.x -> 3.0 update many of us asked for a new "description" of the "post new branch pseudo-release" branch. Something like -DEVEL, which conveys that it's not -CURRENT anymore, but not quite -STABLE either. It seems that suggestion was ignored. :) Doug -- "While the future's there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past" - Jackson Browne, "Fountain of Sorrow" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message