From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 22 02:58:36 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7404916A4CE
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 02:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dave.horsfall.org (mrdavi2.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.75.233])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF32F43D45
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 02:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dave@horsfall.org)
Received: from localhost (dave@localhost)
	by dave.horsfall.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i3M9wWf08670
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:58:32 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:58:32 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org>
To: FreeBSD STABLE list <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.58.0404221649040.8333@dave.horsfall.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Is 4.10-BETA stable?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:58:36 -0000

I decided to take the plunge and perform my very first upgrade, from 4.7
to (I thought) 4.9, by CVSuping RELENG_4 and "make buildworld" etc.

Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead...

Is this release considered stable?  It isn't even mentioned on the FreeBSD
page.  Or did I stuff up, and should have used RELENG_4_9_X instead?

Are there any, umm, release notes for 4.10-BETA, so I can see what I'm
in for?

-- Dave