From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Mar 16 20:40:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail-100baset.rpi.edu [128.113.26.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112C237B718; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:40:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA64404; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:40:55 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010316211106.A34611@spawn.nectar.com> References: <20010316173503T.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <20010316211106.A34611@spawn.nectar.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:40:53 -0500 To: John Baldwin From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: NO MORE '-BETA' Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 9:11 PM -0600 3/16/01, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: >Along these lines ... am I the only one who thinks that >the branch _needs_ to be called BETA at this time? Speaking only for myself, I do not think there is any need for it to be called 'beta'. Not when we're just going from one release of stable into the next one. Stable also breaks when it is not in this "beta stage" of the release cycle. Problems during beta? Yes, occasionally. Unusually serious ones? No. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message