Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:49:45 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru> To: Kenneth Mays <kmays2000@hotmail.com> Cc: scrappy@hub.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?) Message-ID: <20021117224945.A806@grosbein.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <F32yELid1epQzz4IXQp00019522@hotmail.com>; from kmays2000@hotmail.com on Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:14:51AM -0500 References: <F32yELid1epQzz4IXQp00019522@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:14:51AM -0500, Kenneth Mays wrote: > Your question brings up an issue that was talked about several times, and it > was addressed in the docs and the newsgroup. -STABLE is an engineering > development branch that is 'more stable' than -CURRENT, but not more stable > than -RELEASE. -STABLE is NOT for end users/customers for official > production use (i.e. do so at your own risk). I wonder why no one says that -STABLE really WAS stable and WAS intended for end users less than 2 years ago. Moreover, Hanbook said you need -STABLE if you are using FreeBSD in production environment and you need stability, Handbook said it even 15 months ago. And it has been assetring so for long time, that's where the name of this branch came from. Anyone can see that in CVS. Eugene Grosbein 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?20021117224945.A806>