Date: 19 May 2001 14:16:01 -0700 From: Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@artlogix.com> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: -CURRENT, -STABLE and -RELEASE. Message-ID: <871yplnipa.fsf@ralf.artlogix.com> In-Reply-To: "Aaron Hill"'s message of "Fri, 4 May 2001 08:44:18 %2B1000 (EST)"
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Long ago (2.2-RELEASE, I think), I was informed by someone who shall remain nameless but who should have been more knowledgable than I that the branches of FreeBSD went something like this: -CURRENT: Bleeding edge, active source tree, experimental. -RELEASE: The current running version, gets frequent bugfixes and so on; this is the one that most people use. -STABLE: A ploddingly updated source tree, only incorporating minimal bugfixes, since stability was paramount. So I always just skimmed over that portion of the website, and used -RELEASE, because I wanted the latest and greatest without the instability of -CURRENT. And perhaps I shouldn't have, because from what this seems to say is that: -CURRENT: Bleeding edge, active source tree, experimental. -STABLE: The current running version, gets frequent bugfixes and so on; this is the one that most people use. -RELEASE: A snapshot of a solidly running -STABLE source tree, only incorporating minimal bugfixes between releases. Should I be tracking -STABLE instead? In other words, is -STABLE more or less paranoid than -RELEASE? A little embarrassing asking this question, but. . . . ---Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?871yplnipa.fsf>