Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 18:07:38 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sup's Freefall-centric tree conventions Message-ID: <11120.818647658@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 1995 13:17:45 CST." <v0213050cacf0e0476aa6@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I still feel that .../stable should simply be a link to the "real" .../2.1 tr ee. > That way, I don't have to move the trees around when someone suddenly > decides that it is time to change the "-stable" branch and I want to keep > the 2.1 tree. But 2.1 and -stable simply aren't the same things. If you want to keep the 2.1 tree then keep the 2.1 tree, by all means, just don't call it -stable because that's not what it is! :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11120.818647658>