Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:14:51 -0400 From: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: krinklyfig@spymac.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Your 3rd and last chance to help me with vmware Message-ID: <9F9720A2-DB52-11D8-BD53-003065ABFD92@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <200407211251.46229.krinklyfig@spymac.com> References: <4B3F673172B98D449EBCC3BE8316F524041F765A@exch4.elcsb.net> <200407211134.44903.krinklyfig@spymac.com> <8BD99AA9-DB4C-11D8-BD53-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <200407211251.46229.krinklyfig@spymac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 21, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Joshua Tinnin wrote: [ ... ] > OK, as I understand, the branches are -CURRENT and -STABLE. But I > often see > 4.10-STABLE recommended for production use. This is probably due to > what you > describe above. That's right, 4.10 is the latest -STABLE release. > What does RELEASE mean, as specifically as you can? RELEASE refers to a specific version of the system which has gone through the release engineering process described at: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/releng/index.html > I'm using 5.2.1-RELEASE and am not planning on going 4.10-STABLE, as I > can't > due to hardware, and it's not a big deal as this isn't for production. > But > I'm curious ... is RELEASE supposed to be the *most* preferable > candidate for > someone considering a production OS, but just at this time, 5.x hasn't > settled down? End users are expected to install releases rather than daily snapshots from -STABLE or -CURRENT, yes. Releases are published as .iso images and resold by FreeBSD distributors on CDs. > If it had settled down, would would the most preferable > production snapshot in 5.x-STABLE be called RELEASE? If 5.x had settled down, 5.x would now be -STABLE, and the latest RELEASE of 5.x (currently 5.2.1) would be the "most preferable version" for end-users to run. > And is this not the case now because 5.x is taking longer than it > should, so RELEASE is there, even if perhaps it shouldn't be? Thats about what I feel, yes. My opinion is that the current level of effort to stabilize 5.x should have happened around the 5.0 to 5.1 transition, rather than now at the 5.2 to 5.3 transition. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9F9720A2-DB52-11D8-BD53-003065ABFD92>