Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 15 Jul 1997 17:53:13 -0500
From:      Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
To:        Philipp Reichmuth <chokepnt@prima.ruhr.de>
Cc:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: mw fails even more...
Message-ID:  <l03102801aff1ac44f2f7@[208.2.87.4]>
In-Reply-To: <33CC08A3.41C67EA6@prima.ruhr.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
At 6:32 PM -0500 7/15/97, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
>At CTM #0345, my make world ...

Gentlemen (and Ladies),

Let me remind you that there are at least three versions of the OS that are
sharing CTM distribution and the mailing lists.
Personally, I like the idea of using the CTM delta number to indicate a
minor revision level.
However, PLEASE designate which series it is taken from. (Is this 2.1, 2.2,
or cur ?)
Yes, I know that this instance is not src-cur because the number is not in
the thousands.  However, the distinction between the other two is not so
obvious. They both have low generation numbers.

On a more global scale, I would like to advocate that we eliminate the
"stable" mailing list in favor of a 2.1 list and a 2.2 list and a 3.0 list
and ... a ("current", if you must) development list.

To borrow from the Terry-Nate debate, "stable" is a run-state, not the
system designation.

IF this idea is acceptable, we could migrate toward it by creating the
appropriate lists and using aliases during a transition interval.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03102801aff1ac44f2f7>