On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 07:59, Rich Adamson wrote: > Although many of us that have worked in a production I/T arena assume > something called Stable would truly have known bugs fixed, that's hardly the > case for *. That branch really should be renamed to something like v1.0 and > remove any reference to Stable and bug fixes as its treated as a lockdown > for added functionality, and has nothing to do with functional stability.
This comment shows you suffer from not understanding that words have more than one meaning. Stable means not changing much. A stable table doesn't fall over and not that it doesn't have flaws in the design such as being only 1 foot off of the ground. Similar people have the same mistaken opinion about Debian, it is stable because it doesn't change much. Only things that must change(security) gets changed in stable. Someone who runs stable shouldn't have to worry too much about things changing. Remember the reason for stable, it is there to make a run at a 1.0 code release. What software do you know of besides "Hello World" has a bug free 1.0 release. Please watch the inflammatory tone of your message next time you criticize the free software you are using and the people giving you their time. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
