Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:37:48 +0100 From: "Morten Seeberg" <ml@seeberg.dk> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl>, <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <033d01bf40af$e217ac80$1600a8c0@SOS> References: <XFMail.991207123159.steve@pooh.elsevier.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> To: "Morten Seeberg" <morten@seeberg.dk> Cc: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 1:31 PM Subject: RE: is -STABLE really stable? > > But from my experience, STABLE is often is more unstable than RELEASEs, can > > this be true? Is it due to the changes which are made on a day-to-day basis > > on STABLE?? > It can be true, RELEASEs usually follow a beta test period during which > the commits are constrained somewhat. STABLE usually contains bug fixes and > features merged from current. So there is actually really no easy way to stay updated on a production machine (which has to be stable at every cost), because RELEASE is the only actual stable system known the everyday users? Since 3.0 has been out for about a year, why not make more "RELEASE" versions during a year? Or just freeze a few snapshots during the STABLE branch? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?033d01bf40af$e217ac80$1600a8c0>