Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:56:17 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Richard Caley <rjc@interactive.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <20021118095549.O23359-100000@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <87k7jbuhfl.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 Nov 2002, Richard Caley wrote: > In article <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr>, Lefteris Tsintjelis (lt) writes: > > lt> If its a matter of "never committed at all" (I do have a few doubts on this one) > lt> then I guess I have no other choice here but -STABLE or at least some other branch > lt> that is at least maintained. So, which one might that be? > > If STABLE has become de-facto a development branch, and RELEASE needs to > remain rack solid so it can be treated as having had all the pre-release > testing on it, making people reluctant to put in any but the safest > fixes, perhaps it would be a good idea if there were a system of > official patches to RELEASE. These could come with a proviso that they > have been tested to STABLE standards, but not to RELEASE standards, but > if you absolutely need the fix... But, how do you test them to STABLE standards without running STABLE? And if STABLE runs *stable*, why not just run STABLE in the first place? :) 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?20021118095549.O23359-100000>