Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:31:37 +0100 From: J McKitrick <jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> Cc: Kiril Mitev <kiril@ideaglobal.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stability and versions - was Re: Let 3.x die ASAP? Message-ID: <20000331153137.C21703@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000330214705.steveo@eircom.net>; from steveo@eircom.net on Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:47:05PM %2B0100 References: <XFMail.000330214705.steveo@eircom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think the only thing that needs inserted in the handbook (if it isn;t there already, i haven't checked) is something that has been said before: "STABLE" refers to the code base, NOT the stability of systems running it. Simple concept, deep meaning. Newbies should understand (as is clearly stated in the handbook) that -current is not a new toy or a whizbang version with all the newest gadgets. And they,as well as intermediate users, should understand that -stable means all the features that will be included in this branch are done, and now are being debugged and maintained (post-beta bugs, of course). jm -- -------------------------------------------- Jonathon McKitrick -- jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org Pure... unrefined... spice.... -------------------------------------------- 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?20000331153137.C21703>