Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:01:23 -0500 From: Allen <slackwarewolf@comcast.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help me Message-ID: <200512310501.23670.slackwarewolf@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <43B65684.3000106@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <d7313d210512301313o4b0b0c1ex1f395570ff819f8f@mail.gmail.com> <5ceb5d550512302123v691619e2me120853f2e591691@mail.gmail.com> <43B65684.3000106@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 31 December 2005 04:59, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Daniel A. wrote: > > On 12/30/05, Pavel Duda <element@email.cz> wrote: > >>In short : > >>release - is something you want for your production system > >>stable - is something you can use too without much worry - it should be > >>"stable" right ? :-) > >>current - is for brave people who like to spend nights to figure out > >>what the hell is going on with their system and fight with all those > >>mysterious kernel panics.. > > > > Isn't "stable" supposed to mean that it's "feature-stable", as in > > "We've discontinued implementing new features to this kernel, and are > > fixing bugs"? > > Not in FreeBSD it isn't. You want 'Release' for that. 'Stable' is a > development branch -- for code that has been well tested in the current > branch and which is therefore something that could go into a release > candidate. It's called 'Stable' for historical reasons and because systems > with that tag run stably -- which is a pretty damn impressive achievement > for a code branch that can see extensive modifications to whole subsystems > of the kernel. Ahhh the good ol days of the CSRG :) Come on man, how can you possibly be impressed that they do that? They made Free BSD, it takes a lot more to impress me now > > Cheers, > > Matthew -Allen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200512310501.23670.slackwarewolf>