> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Boger > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Ian Collier wrote: > > Phillip Pi wrote: > > > Actually, CVS is more stable than 1.0.4 release. > > > > I said: > > > Why isn't it released, then? [snip] > > make an interim release then let's release it. If it isn't developed > > enough then let's not claim it is "stable"... > > stable means "not crashing" in my world, not "not changing".
I'd agree on "not crashing" but "not changing"? How about the 'stable' even-numbered kernel versions? How many patch levels were we up to in 2.2 before the next 'stable' 2.4 came out? (18 if I recall) And then after 2.4 came out there were *still* new patch levels for the 'stable' 2.2 kernels (hasn't that got up to 30 something?) And I'd have to say that the kernel is a paradigm case of opensource development... Lets release the new licq if only because the 'current' version does not work at all! (relative to the proprietary icq network) _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Licq-main mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/licq-main
