From owner-freebsd-doc  Fri Apr  9  6:13:52 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31FE14F20
	for <FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  9 Apr 1999 06:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from lowell@world.std.com)
Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (STD1.2/BZS-8-1.0)
	id JAA10484; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by world.std.com (TheWorld/Spike-2.0)
	id AA24204; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:11:44 -0400
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:11:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199904091311.AA24204@world.std.com>
From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com>
To: fullermd@futuresouth.com
Cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <19990408174838.C11572@futuresouth.com>
	(fullermd@futuresouth.com)
Subject: Re: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current
References: <199904081451.KAA37100@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com> <19990408174838.C11572@futuresouth.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

<moved to freebsd-doc directly>

   Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:48:38 -0500
   From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com>

   Side note: I've always prefered that way; I still refer to the systems
   here as 2.2-STABLE, since they're along the -STABLE 2.2 branch.  Naming
   them after the latest release along the branch always seemed rather
   counter-intuitive and strange to me.  I understand the reasoning behind
   it, but I still prefer the branch designation.

If everybody did that, there wouldn't be any confusion.  In practice,
I'm not sure it really helps, particularly for newcomers.  The current
wording in that section tries to finesse the question completely.  I
think that's the right thing, and I tried to follow suit while still 
reducing the confusion that produced a couple of questions from new
users within the last week.

   > *** 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).

   I dislike the term 'instability' here.  Perhaps something more along
   the lines of 'increased volatility'...?

There are two different senses of stability being implied by that
terminology.  There's operational stability, in terms of how often
something may crash, and there's functional stability, in terms of how
often the software itself changes.  Again, the current language
finessed the distinction, I approved, and I tried to follow suit.
You're referring to the second, which *is* a more useful thing to
measure, but I don't think explaining the distinction will make things
clearer for non-experts (because it's not really relevant to answering
the question in that section).

Be well.
        Lowell


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message