Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:29:53 -0600
From:      "Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P." <kdk@daleco.biz>
To:        stormjumper <stormjumper@myrealbox.com>
Cc:        freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD: diff between RELEASE and STABLE
Message-ID:  <3FB3BF91.2070104@daleco.biz>
In-Reply-To: <024501c3aa06$4025ca50$6305a8c0@hockjim.homeip.net>
References:  <DCEE01466A8BC541AFF5B671084EF456C04E@doublel01.double-l.lokaal> <024501c3aa06$4025ca50$6305a8c0@hockjim.homeip.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
stormjumper wrote:

>hmm,
>
>thanks Johan
>
>somebody, anybody, correct me if i'm wrong pls.
>
>does this imply that RELEASE is more stable than STABLE?
>
>thanks
>  
>

More or less, yes.

-STABLE is stable, but changes to the code
are put in from time to time to make progress
toward the *next* RELEASE.  In the event someone
manages to accidentally mangle a line of code,
it might not get noticed until you sync your source
and buildworld, etc.

Then you get some message "syntax error in foofile
on line xxx" and 'stop in /usr/src' ... not too much fun.
Even worse, it might build but not run correctly.

FWIW, this has never happened to me, and I've
been using -STABLE on production servers for
over a year.

-RELEASE code is -STABLE that is frozen, double
and triple checked and allowed to 'simmer' for a
few weeks to see if any such problems appear,
basically.  The guys work pretty hard to make sure
that it's gonna be acceptable to stamp "RELEASE"
on it and not ruin the OS's image as a strong,
stable, modern and powerful OS.

HTH,



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FB3BF91.2070104>