Brooks Davis wrote: >>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.
That's right, let's not make any mention of the pink hippo in the living room. The nomenclature is fup duck. It should be changed. Just because there's a historical explanation for abusing the language doesn't mean it should be perpetuated. Bad semantics could definitely be considered noise. -STABLE is unstable (or potentially so). -SECURITY (which isn't really a tag) is what most people think of when they lex the term "stable." Squelching the insightful newcomer is the sign of disease. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
