Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:59:37 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
Cc:        "David E. Tweten" <tweten@frihet.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: -current and -stable mailing lists 
Message-ID:  <199703180059.RAA09340@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]> 
References:  <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]>  Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]> Richard Wackerbarth writes:
: It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it
: is kicked out the door.  I think that such an attitude shows that there is
: a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real"
: product.  If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is
: discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will
: continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality
: product that many of us want it to be.

If the 2.2 release process was shorter, then I might agree with you.
However, the release has been extensively tested and tuned over the
last several months.  It seems to be more stable than the 2.1.x system
that I had for a while.  If anything, that shows a high level of
commitment to quality.

Personally, I like the idea of having -frozen to describe the 2.1.x
tree and bring 2.2.x into the -stable role with 3.0 still being called
-current.

Warner





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703180059.RAA09340>