Thanks all for the responses. Between the web pages and this
discussion, my knowledge of this has now become a *lot* clearer.
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
> really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
> when, I think we had a long knock-down drag-out fight about
> naming of -STABLE vs. -DEVEL, and the expectations users have
> about the resulting code. That was where -SECURITY showed up:
> -SECURITY is a "stable version of -STABLE" (as if things weren't
> exciting enough... 8-) 8-)).
Gah! Too much excitement for me. ;)
I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
IMNSHO.
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
"All the wonders you seek are within yourself."
-Sir Thomas Brown
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
