From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 7 4:51:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za (oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za [196.7.114.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A6614F4E for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:51:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbezuide@oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za) Received: (from rbezuide@localhost) by oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za (8.9.3/8.9.0) id OAA15528; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:49:15 +0200 (SAT) From: Reinier Bezuidenhout Message-Id: <199912071249.OAA15528@oskar.dev.nanoteq.co.za> Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? In-Reply-To: <033d01bf40af$e217ac80$1600a8c0@SOS> from Morten Seeberg at "Dec 7, 99 01:37:48 pm" To: morten@seeberg.dk Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:49:15 +0200 (SAT) Cc: steve@pooh.elsevier.nl, stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > 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? There is a 3.3-RELEASE out ... which is a release :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message