Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:54:04 -0800 From: "Evan Dower" <evantd@hotmail.com> To: kris@obsecurity.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5_0 v. HEAD Message-ID: <F20rKDR8BJimZGPBgCu00009110@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Perhaps I should choose my words more wisely. The ports system will allow you to build it (nvidia-driver) on a recent HEAD, but not on RELENG_5_0. I assume that this is because some change was made that increased its stability. I had it installed anyway, for a while, but in the end chose stability over tuxracer ;-). Maybe now I can have both. I would guess that stability and performance have both increased in a number of areas since 5.0 was released. As a user of an SMP system, that may affect me more than the average user, but as the owner of a lowly workstation (as opposed to a server), maybe it wouldn't be so noticeable. Of course, it has only been about two and a half months, but I get the impression that perhaps it has come along way in that short time. I guess my question, if it can be boiled down into a single question, is "Is HEAD _usually_ faster and more stable than RELENG_5_0?" Thanks again, Evan Dower, a recently admitted CS major at the University of Washington who would love for some nice FreeBSD developer to take him under their wing and gently introduce him to the world of FreeBSD development (instead of being an idle spectator) >From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> >To: Evan Dower <evantd@hotmail.com> >CC: freebsd-current@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: RELENG_5_0 v. HEAD >Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:29:06 -0800 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org ([63.207.60.150]) by >mc4-f23.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 1 Apr >2003 10:29:07 -0800 >Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5])by >obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTPid 3890666CFA; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 >10:29:06 -0800 (PST) >Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)id 211B012AA; >Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:29:06 -0800 (PST) >X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Q1OJDRSDidP >Message-ID: <20030401182906.GD4151@rot13.obsecurity.org> >References: <F136R6sKBEr8pkpLkTg00006c1d@hotmail.com> >In-Reply-To: <F136R6sKBEr8pkpLkTg00006c1d@hotmail.com> >User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i >Return-Path: kris@obsecurity.org >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2003 18:29:07.0789 (UTC) >FILETIME=[94EB7FD0:01C2F87C] > >On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:42:25AM -0800, Evan Dower wrote: > > I've been tracking RELENG_5_0 pretty much since it existed, but I am > > wondering now if it would be better to track -CURRENT via HEAD instead. > > After all, with the semi-frozen status of HEAD, all knew commits should >be > > fairly conservative and the _general_ _ trend_ should at least be toward >a > > more stable product. I wonder if HEAD is actually a more stable product > > than RELENG_5_0. > >Sometimes is, sometimes isn't. You have to be fairly careful to >upgrade at the right time based on commit activity and mailing list >traffic. > > > Certainly it would be for anyone using the nvidia-driver, > > since it is unsupported on RELENG_5_0. What are your thoughts? > >It's just as unsupported on HEAD. > >Kris ><< attach3 >> _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F20rKDR8BJimZGPBgCu00009110>