From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 15:49:28 2003 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 5B7AB37B401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webserver.get-linux.org (adsl-64-161-78-226.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.161.78.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A75643F93 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:49:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oremanj@webserver.get-linux.org) Received: (qmail 13431 invoked by uid 1000); 21 Jul 2003 22:49:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:49:51 -0700 From: oremanj@get-linux.org To: David Rio Message-ID: <20030721224951.GB13328@webserver> References: <20030721221840.GB58118@perpels.com> <20030721222721.GA13328@webserver> <20030721224155.GB58510@perpels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030721224155.GB58510@perpels.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 ? 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: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:49:28 -0000 On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:41:55AM +0200, David Rio wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:27:21PM -0700, oremanj@get-linux.org wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:18:40AM +0200, David Rio wrote: > > > Hi all: > > > > > > I have been using FreeBSD in production enviroments so I used FreeBSD 4.7 and 4.8. > > > Now, I have installed FreeBSD 5.1 on my laptop. > > > So I decided to keep track of the -RELEASE_5 (STABLE). But It seems that there is > > > not such a branch on the repository. > > > Reading diferent links at freebsd.org. It seems that there is only to branchs for > > > 5.1: > > > > > > -CURRENT > > > -RELENG_5_1 > > > > > > The first one, I think can be a very agresive for my intentions. The second one, > > > instead, will not modify my sources to improve the performace because it is a > > > patch branch. > > > > > > If I am not wrong with this, what will be the reason to install 5.1 instead 4.8? > > > I mean, 5.1 has more features but a worst performace that 4.8. On the other hand, > > > there is no -STABLE branch of 5.1 so the only way to keep you system up to date > > > is follow the -CURRENT branch which is a little agresive in my case. > > > > Right now, -CURRENT is pretty "stable", since there is no 5-STABLE yet. That branch > > will probably be branched around 5.2-RELEASE. > > > > So track -CURRENT until -STABLE is branched. > > > > -- Josh > > > > > Is there any reason why -CURRENT 5.1 is more stable than -CURRENT 4.8? There is no such thing as -CURRENT 4.8. Read the link someone posted earlier, please. -- Josh