On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
And honestly, I don't have the time to debug
it. It didn't work, I went back to what worked. Is that so bad?
Nope, it's your life, spend the time whatever way feels right to you.
However, I think most of us would appreciate it if you don't
Andy wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
And honestly, I don't have the time to debug
it. It didn't work, I went back to what worked. Is that so bad?
Nope, it's your life, spend the time whatever way feels right to you.
However, I think most of us would
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:33:57AM +1200, Mark Ibell wrote:
Anyone know if Yahoo! are running 4.0-RELEASE or 4.0-STABLE?
For all intents and purposes 4.0-YAHOO, which is a subset of 4.0-STABLE :-
--
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CHIMES
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Andy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about "merging into future 4.x builds".
4.x is already much more stable than 3.x ever was..the bug-fixing has
already taken place during the development of the 4.0 branch.
* Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000629 12:56] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Andy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about "merging into future 4.x builds".
4.x is already much more stable than 3.x ever was..the bug-fixing has
already
Barton
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:48 PM
To: Andy
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.5 now available . . . . .
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Andy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about "merging into future 4.x builds".
4.x is al
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, kmays wrote:
I hope the 3.x build can be merged into future 4.x builds
successfully so we can do away with 3.x. I don't think all of the bugs in
3.x will ever be fixed unless you freeze new features and try to fix all the
old ones.
I don't know what you're talking about
In message 4.3.2.7.0.2627022543.00ab0cc0@vivaldi Sergei Vyshenski writes:
: So FreeBSD has two stable branches?
: Which one is more stable among stable for i386?
: Say for use at a site that need reliable round-the-clock
: gatewaing, named and mail operation?
I'd use 4.0-stable.
Warner
To
