Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
> > >
> > > *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> > > wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> > > will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to release and ship a
> > > 4.0-beta? -CURRENT = development which scares people. Beta means most bugs
> > > already ironed out and looking for test by larger audience. -RELEASE should
> > > not be a beta, ever.
> >
> > What do you think 3.0-RELEASE was ?
> > This seems to be how FreeBSD works now.
>
> It's how FreeBSD's users seem to want it to work, since they have utterly
> refused to cooperate with any other arrangement. Those of us behind the
> release-engineering effort have tried everything realistic that's been
> suggested (and a great many other things); history speaks for itself as
> to the results.
Alpha, Beta, 4.0, are all just semantic labels anyhow. Every product, or at
least every producer of software, develops their own terminology for how
software is released to "customers." In the FreeBSD world, it has evolved
that .0 means "ready to run, but not in production" and .1 or .2 means "now
ready for prime time." While this may differ from whatever other system you
are used to, it doesn't make it wrong, just different.
Release 4.0 won't be a beta, it will just be a .0 release. Thank everyone
that unlike most web browsers, we at least do >.0 releases.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
