RE: freebsd naming of releases

On Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:40 AM, Chris <> unleashed the infinite monkeys and
produced:

> Well you cannot change how people think and act, rather then changing
> the way thousands of people think I think its better to change how the
> naming is done on non stable releases, what happened with 5.x was that
> it was named to get more people to use and as such more testing but
> they were fooled into thinking it was based on stable code and so we
> seen mass datacentres and individual users using 5.1 and 5.2 for
> production use, then when 5.3 did the library version bump lots of
> issues arose from it because so many people were using 5.1 and 5.2.

The warnings were pretty clear - such lines as:

"the first few 5.X releases may have regressions in areas of stability,
performance, and occasionally functionality"

and

"We feel that such users are probably best served by upgrading to 5.X only after
a 5-STABLE development branch has been created"

Make it obvious that it's not exactly production quality.  If people aren't
willing to read the release notes *before* they upgrade, then they deserve
everything they get (or to quote from somebody else's sig - "Unix is user
friendly. However, it isn't idiot friendly").

-- 
 Rob | Oh my God! They killed init! You bastards!