Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 04:54:07 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <20021117044229.Q29719-100000@fubar.adept.org> In-Reply-To: <3DD73B47.6000105@tenebras.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Michael Sierchio wrote: > Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote: > > It sure is misleading. Why is it called -stable then? You would expect > > to stand up to its name. > Cf. Humpty Dumpty, I'm afraid. -STABLE doesn't mean stable at all. Please don't start this adolescant flamefest again. Any newbie who reads the handbook should understand the meaning of "stable". (It's all spelled out in black and white.) Any non-newbie who's actually been involved with software products should understand the typical use of a -STABLE branch. I'm not sure if the earlier post claiming -stable use since '94 or so is accurate, but if it is, as another pointed out, you should have seen similar periods in -STABLE before now and been better prepared to avoid these types of situations. Anything but -RELEASE is a development branch, that's typically how software projects go. 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?20021117044229.Q29719-100000>