From owner-freebsd-questions Sat May 19 17:18:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-26-235-186.mmcable.com [65.26.235.186]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C69337B42C for ; Sat, 19 May 2001 17:18:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm@mired.org) Received: (qmail 27030 invoked by uid 100); 20 May 2001 00:18:20 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15111.3404.680997.19620@guru.mired.org> Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:18:20 -0500 To: Ken McGlothlen Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -CURRENT, -STABLE and -RELEASE. In-Reply-To: <75492046@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ken McGlothlen types: > 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. . . . No, it's one that a lot of people have problems with. The second one is *almost* right. Delete the last line, as -RELEASE isn't updated; it's a snapshot. Until very recently, if something critical needed to be done between releases, a "point release" was done, so that you could be running 4.1.1-RELEASE. I also question the "this is the one most people use". It's certainly true for most people who are tracking FreeBSD via the source repository, but it's not clear how many people are just running -RELEASE and don't bother updating from sources. With the release of 4.3, a true third branch was added, which you track with the tag RELENG_4_3. It's the bug fix only branch, and doesn't have a name yet. I'm still waiting to see if anything will be committed to it, and what will happen to it when 4.4-RELEASE shows up. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message