On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:44:02PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: > 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.
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed over more times then are worth counting on various mailing lists which are fully archived. If you really care go read the flamewars there, don't start them on the list. The signal to noise ratio is bad enough without this junk. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
msg34061/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
