From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 1 14:07:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA3C16A4CE for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:07:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from falcon.midgard.homeip.net (h201n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23FCD43D55 for ; Sun, 1 Feb 2004 14:07:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ertr1013@student.uu.se) Received: (qmail 84824 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Feb 2004 22:07:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:07:01 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Bob Collins Message-ID: <20040201220701.GA84767@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Bob Collins , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20040201210746.GA10195@yoda.anything-inc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040201210746.GA10195@yoda.anything-inc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cvsup and RELENG_4 or RLENG_4_9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 22:07:11 -0000 On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:07:46PM -0500, Bob Collins wrote: > I have read through the keeping current section of the book a few times > and I am a bit lost. If I read correctly, to upgrade source(I am running > RELEASE-4.9) I can use either RELENG_4 or RELENG_4_9. Although I am not > sure if I need one, the other, or both. And if both, which order, if it > matters? You should use one of them - not both. > > Further reading indicates that cvsuping with RLENEG_4_9 will update only > critical items. Again, if I am reading this correctly, should I then > cvsup both so I have all the sources corrected, or is RELENG_4_9 enough > for a production machine? Either RELENG_4 or RELENG_4_9 will get you complete sources. The differences is that RELENG_4 is the development branch leading up to the next 4.x release, while RELENG_4_9 is essentially 4.9-RELEASE + critical fixes. (With 4.9-RELEASE being essentially a snapshot of the RELENG_4 branch at a particular moment in time.) RELENG_4 can potentially contain a large number of differences from 4.9-RELEASE, while RELENG_4_9 will only have minor (if any) differences to the sources used for 4.9-RELEASE. > > Thanks for your patience with this. I have also searched a bit about it > and I am on the right track, I just think I need some clarification as > to which one is `best' for a production machine. > > FWIW, this will be for a dual processed server. RELENG_4_9 is much less likely to introduce *new* bugs to the code, but it will not get all the bugfixes or new features that get added to RELENG_4. Most of the time RELENG_4 (aka 4-STABLE) is quite stable and safe, but occasionaly things break badly. (An example of that is back in August 2003, when RELENG_4 was quite unstable and crash-prone for a period of about three weeks, until a bug had been fixed that had been introduced when support for machines with more than 4GB RAM had been added.) If you currently do not have any problems with 4.9-RELEASE and follow the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school of thought then RELENG_4_9 is probably right for you. Personally I use RELENG_4, but then it is not crucial that my machines stay up all the time, so if they crash due to some new bug introduced in RELENG_4 it is not a major catastrophy. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se