Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107230948450.75814-100000@snafu.adept.org> In-Reply-To: <200107231630.AHQ09490@100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > "the stable branch is effectively a bug-fix stream relative to the > previous release" True. > "[-RELEASE is] really just a ``snapshot'' from the -STABLE branch that > we put on CDROM," Well, it is really a snapshot, that's true again. Maybe it would be helpful to indicate that some amount of effort goes into ensuring the 'snapshot' is release-quality (I.e. code freezes, etc.). > sure sound like where I want to be. Actually, the user you describe as just 'ending up' places vs. actually RTFMing and making informed decissions sounds like a newbie. With that in mind, I'd suggest reading: http://www.freebsd.org/projects/newbies.html Specifically, "If you haven't installed yet, look for the *latest mainstream release*." "Latest mainstream release" being a link to (at present) 4.3R. No one suggested that people so easily confused by development cycles actually try to install non-release releases. > I claim that there is a certain amount of stability being advertised > there. Correct. It's advertised, and is present. -STABLE is more 'stable' than -CURRENT. > "Any changes to this branch will have debuted in FreeBSD-CURRENT > first, helping to reduce (but not eliminate) the chance that the > changes will cause problems," Correct. > "Changes to this branch have not been widely tested and should not > be depended on to work." Hmm. Speak for yourself, and your apparent lack of clue. Personally, I have many working -STABLE boxes. > I'm not whining about -STABLE, but then again I didn't lose. However, > I think the current attitude toward people who end up losing after > basically being led to -STABLE by the documentation is bad. It might > be a good idea to add "NOTE: Since this documentation may be out of > date with respect to -STABLE, you should never consider tracking it > until you have read freebsd-stable for a couple of weeks." I don't have attitude toward people that 'lose'. I don't think anyone does. That's why you see hundreds of messages in list archives from individuals offering suggestions and help to those that have 'lost'. I do, however, have mass attitude toward individuals who fail then attempt to blame the failure on something other than themselves. It is suggested that users track relevant mailing lists for whichever branch they choose. In short, it's suggested users actually attempt to understand what they use. It may be worth noting that the official Handbook install procedure links to installation floppies for the current -RELEASE. Again, noone suggests users incapable of RTFMing run non-release releases. I can't stress this enough. Personally, I think the current naming convention makes a lot of sense. I also think that, no matter what names you chose for the branches, someone will dissent. I'm all for removing actual inconsistencies in the documentation. However, if this is really just an attempt to have things worded 'your way', I could argue I want it 'my way' (anyone could). Many of the places you cite above say exactly what they should say. I'm glad to know some work has been done to clarify past points of confusion (kudos to the docs team), I just hope time isn't wasted rewriting documentation for the sake of pleasing everyone (vs. saying what needs to be said)... As we all know, that's an endless battle. Later, -Mike -- Log analysis mailing list: http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107230948450.75814-100000>