Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:04:48 +0100 From: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysinstall options Message-ID: <3jzptqprlwf.fsf@tolf.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <m37kcxzh4i.fsf@teg.local> (Frank Tegtmeyer's message of "22 Jan 2003 10:08:29 %2B0100") References: <20030122145850.E54551-100000@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru> <m37kcxzh4i.fsf@teg.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Frank Tegtmeyer <fte-sub-freebsd-stable@fte.to> writes: | I thought that the -RELEASE system is made from the -STABLE cvs | branch so that this is in effect the same. Is this wrong? No and yes. RELEASE is taken from STABLE, but that doesn't mean that STABLE is RELEASE. When a new release is being made, it is always tested rigorously. STABLE is a branch undergoing constant development, meaning that there's no guarantee of its stability. It might contain development code that could be unstable. Not really bad, but not rock solid. Tracking RELEASE is a lot more stable. If you have, say, RELENG_4_7 in your supfile, you get security fixes for 4.7-RELEASE. This doesn't happen very often unless many security holes are found. This is the way to go if you are dependent on stability. If you track RELENG_4 (= STABLE) you get more new features, but sometimes at the cost of stability. -- SB 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?3jzptqprlwf.fsf>