Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 13:37:52 -0300 From: Renato Botelho <garga@FreeBSD.org> To: bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update strategy and timing Message-ID: <9ed12219-6e78-4156-b0df-aca91a732127@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <af4FwVaA_3P4yam-@www.zefox.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 08/05/26 12:48, bob prohaska wrote: > Is there a preferred strategy to timing updates > for self-hosted FreeBSD systems? > > On the stable branches it's easy; just update when > updates are announced and build/install. Once caught > up, things can be left alone for days at least.. > > With -current there's essentially no pause in the > stream of fresh commits, so git finds a new commit > by the time buildworld finishes. > > Is there some marker or indicator that signals the > -current tree is at least nominally consistent and > buildable? I'm not asking if it'll work, just whenter > it's worth a try. > > For example, my practice has been to run git pull, > then make buildworld. If buildworld succeeds, I'll > try another pull. If nothing new shows up then run > install and reboot. This works with a stable branch, > but with -current there are always fresh commits. > > I've tried looking at the commits to see if they're > relevant to problems I'm seeing, rebuilding if they > are and proceeding with install if they seem unrelated. > > Is this approach at all sound? Is there a better way? You can follow the stabilization week mark. More information at: https://wiki.freebsd.org/StabWeeks -- Renato Botelhohome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9ed12219-6e78-4156-b0df-aca91a732127>