Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:50:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current Message-ID: <199904082250.PAA08815@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/11028; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:48:38 -0500 On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 10:51:49AM -0400, a little birdie told me that Lowell Gilbert remarked > > [This probably isn't an optimal description either, but it's an > improvement. The real trick would be to make clear the distinction > between a -stable release, like 3.1-R, and the -stable code tree; in > particular, making this clear to someone who's never used a source > code control system of any sort. A lot of confusion is caused by the > common use on the mailing lists of references to "3.1-STABLE", which > is (pedantically) really more like "3-STABLE".] Side note: I've always prefered that way; I still refer to the systems here as 2.2-STABLE, since they're along the -STABLE 2.2 branch. Naming them after the latest release along the branch always seemed rather counter-intuitive and strange to me. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I still prefer the branch designation. > *** preface.sgml Sat Mar 27 10:48:06 1999 > --- preface.sgml.new Wed Apr 7 13:29:52 1999 > *************** > *** 95,100 **** > --- 95,110 ---- > <p>Briefly explained, <em/-stable/ is aimed at the ISP or other > corporate user who wants stability and a low change count over > the wizzy new features of the latest <em/-current/ snapshot. > + Releases can come from either "branch," but you should only use > + <em/-current/ if you're sure that you're prepared for its > + relative instability (relative to <em/-stable/, that is). I dislike the term 'instability' here. Perhaps something more along the lines of 'increased volatility'...? --- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Matthew Fuller http://www.over-yonder.net/ | * fullermd@futuresouth.com fullermd@over-yonder.net * | UNIX Systems Administrator Specializing in FreeBSD | * FutureSouth Communications ISPHelp ISP Consulting * | "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, | * is because I haven't figured out how to light the * | middle yet" | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904082250.PAA08815>