Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:43:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Sung Nae Cho <sucho2@quasar.phys.vt.edu> To: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu> Cc: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107231432280.16698-100000@quasar.phys.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107231814.AHR11632@100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Hmmmm, I thought FreeBSD-x.x-STABLE was the stabilized version of the of the released version, i.e., FreeBSD-x.x-RELEASE. And, FreeBSD-CURRENT was the version being worked on for next major release. When FreeBSD-x.x-STABLE gets sufficiently enough bugs fixed, time to add on new ports, FreeBSD-x.x-RELEASE comes out officially (which gets burned into CD for stores!). Then the FreeBSD-x.x-STABLE continues because even the new version always have new bugs. Of course, one can't make CD image files (iso's) for each STABLE snapshots for it comes out nearly daily + too much of time consumption. Basically, FreeBSD-x.x-STABLE means it's a bug fixed version to the recent released set. But, as always, no matter how well one tries to evict the "bug", there's always a new plague about to emerge. A "Bug" is like a virus that mutates into something else. If you literally think FreeBSD-x.x-STABLE would be bug free, you must be in some sort of fantasy world and there's nothing anyone can satisfy your taste. Sung N. Cho On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>: > >On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > >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*." > > This is a perfect example of how the documentation is going wrong. If > you have installed FreeBSD, then that ain't you. That's one reason > why I suggested changing "if you are new to FreeBSD, you are most > likely going to want to think twice about running [-CURRENT]." There > are a lot more people who ought to think twice about running -CURRENT > then just those who are "new to FreeBSD". > > >> "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. > > Well, I might not be the most clueful person in the world, but I can > usually manage to avoid having ad hominem and hasty generalization > fallacies in consecutive sentences. Do you dislike that sentence > because you claim that -STABLE has been widely tested, or that it > should be depended on to work, or both? > > >From what other people have said, it seems to be the case that a) > -STABLE used to be exactly what the handbook (until the most recent > update) says it is, and b) it's not anymore, but RELENG_<major>_ > <minor> is instead. I would be interested to hear somebody > authoritative correct that, but otherwise it means the handbook needs > to be fixed. No big deal, seems to be happening already, everybody be > happy. > > Steve > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > 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.LNX.4.33.0107231432280.16698-100000>