Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:51:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current Message-ID: <199904081451.KAA37100@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 11028
>Category: docs
>Synopsis: new text for FAQ to explain branches
>Confidential: no
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Responsible: freebsd-doc
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: change-request
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Thu Apr 8 08:00:01 PDT 1999
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Lowell Gilbert
>Release: FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE i386
>Organization:
myself
>Environment:
current FAQ.
>Description:
There's been a lot of newbie confusion about the terms "release"
"stable" and "current" lately. Here's some new text for the FAQ to
help eliminate this confusion.
>How-To-Repeat:
Read -questions? :-)
>Fix:
[This probably isn't an optimal description either, but it's an
improvement. The real trick would be to make clear the distinction
between a -stable release, like 3.1-R, and the -stable code tree; in
particular, making this clear to someone who's never used a source
code control system of any sort. A lot of confusion is caused by the
common use on the mailing lists of references to "3.1-STABLE", which
is (pedantically) really more like "3-STABLE".]
*** preface.sgml Sat Mar 27 10:48:06 1999
--- preface.sgml.new Wed Apr 7 13:29:52 1999
***************
*** 95,100 ****
--- 95,110 ----
<p>Briefly explained, <em/-stable/ is aimed at the ISP or other
corporate user who wants stability and a low change count over
the wizzy new features of the latest <em/-current/ snapshot.
+ Releases can come from either "branch," but you should only use
+ <em/-current/ if you're sure that you're prepared for its
+ relative instability (relative to <em/-stable/, that is).
+
+ <p>Releases are only made <ref id="release_freq" name="every few
+ months">. While many people stay more up-to-date with the
+ FreeBSD sources (see the questions on <ref id="current"
+ name="FreeBSD-current"> and <ref id="stable"
+ name="FreeBSD-stable">) than that, doing so is more of a
+ commitment, as the sources are a moving target.
<sect1>
<heading>What is FreeBSD-current?<label id="current"></heading>
***************
*** 147,153 ****
branches.
<sect1>
! <heading>What is the FreeBSD-stable concept?</heading>
<p>Back when FreeBSD 2.0.5 was released, we decided to branch FreeBSD
development into two parts. One branch was named <url
--- 157,163 ----
branches.
<sect1>
! <heading>What is the FreeBSD-stable concept?<label id="stable"></heading>
<p>Back when FreeBSD 2.0.5 was released, we decided to branch FreeBSD
development into two parts. One branch was named <url
***************
*** 196,202 ****
with the first 4.0 releases appearing in Q1 2000.
<sect1>
! <heading>When are FreeBSD releases made?</heading>
<p>As a general principle, the FreeBSD core team only release a new
version of FreeBSD when they believe that there are sufficient new
--- 206,212 ----
with the first 4.0 releases appearing in Q1 2000.
<sect1>
! <heading>When are FreeBSD releases made?<label id="release_freq"></heading>
<p>As a general principle, the FreeBSD core team only release a new
version of FreeBSD when they believe that there are sufficient new
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904081451.KAA37100>