Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:59:05 -0800 From: Darren Pilgrim <dmp@pantherdragon.org> To: Peter Hoskin <peterh@ripewithdecay.com> Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>, Hununu <hununu@netcabo.pt>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <3DD6F7E9.7090506@pantherdragon.org> References: <20021117115616.T301-100000@extortion.peterh.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[redirecting to -chat due to charter alignment issues] Peter Hoskin wrote: > STABLE is still a development branch. The name is misleading. If I were > you, I'd install & run release. I've taken to using beta/alpha to describe -stable and -current. It seems to get the point across why -stable and -current aren't intended for mainstream use and what it can and usually does take to play in those parts of the tree. Personally, I think the BSDs many other projects need to make use of the more common alpha/beta terminology. I'm not asking to rename whole sections of CVS, the effort to useful work ratio is too low, but making this distinction to people in conversation would help significantly. 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?3DD6F7E9.7090506>