Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 22:22:36 +0100 From: "Mark Hughes" <mark@dvdnews.co.uk> To: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Ken McGlothlen" <mcglk@artlogix.com> Subject: Re: -CURRENT, -STABLE and -RELEASE. Message-ID: <002501c0e0a9$d7c34f50$0200a8c0@mark2> References: <871yplnipa.fsf@ralf.artlogix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Long ago (2.2-RELEASE, I think), I was informed by someone who shall remain > nameless but who should have been more knowledgable than I that the branches of > FreeBSD went something like this: > > -CURRENT: Bleeding edge, active source tree, experimental. > -RELEASE: The current running version, gets frequent bugfixes and > so on; this is the one that most people use. > -STABLE: A ploddingly updated source tree, only incorporating > minimal bugfixes, since stability was paramount. > > So I always just skimmed over that portion of the website, and used -RELEASE, > because I wanted the latest and greatest without the instability of -CURRENT. > And perhaps I shouldn't have, because from what this seems to say is that: > > -CURRENT: Bleeding edge, active source tree, experimental. > -STABLE: The current running version, gets frequent bugfixes and > so on; this is the one that most people use. > -RELEASE: A snapshot of a solidly running -STABLE source tree, > only incorporating minimal bugfixes between releases. > > Should I be tracking -STABLE instead? In other words, is -STABLE more or less > paranoid than -RELEASE? neither...if I understand things right, -RELEASE is a snapshot of -STABLE used to create the CD ISO images and CDs that you can buy from walnut creek or wherever. I think most people install the -RELEASE version then CVSUP to -STABLE and track that, but I could be wrong. HTH, Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002501c0e0a9$d7c34f50$0200a8c0>