Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:06:31 -0500 From: Bob Johnson <stest033@garbonzo.hos.ufl.edu> To: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <200211171306.31020.stest033@garbonzo.hos.ufl.edu> In-Reply-To: <3DD6EEA0.AD524CA2@ene.asda.gr> References: <20021117115616.T301-100000@extortion.peterh.dropbear.id.au> <3DD6EEA0.AD524CA2@ene.asda.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 16 November 2002 08:19 pm, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote:
> It sure is misleading. Why is it called -stable then? You would expect
> to stand up to its name.
It is called -stable because once upon a time it was intended to
BE stable. Commits to -stable were only supposed to happen after
they had been well tested in -current. The FreeBSD documentation
specifically recommended running -stable in a production environment.
In those days (not terribly long ago), and -current was the beta test
environment for stuff that had been alpha tested by those who applied
patches on their own. Once code proved stable in -current, it was
moved to -stable. Real effort was put in to keeping -stable suitable
for production environments.
It may be that -stable is no longer stable because it was allowed (for
valid reasons) to diverge considerably from -current. -current
and -stable are almost two separate projects. Or perhaps the idea has
taken hold that -current is the alpha branch, and -stable is the beta
branch because of assumptions carried into FreeBSD from other projects
that various committers have worked on. Or perhaps the rapid pace of
development has made the old model obsolete. Or maybe the old model
was never really a good one, but it was at least a goal that strived for.
As things stand now, it appears that -current is the alpha branch,
-stable is the not-so-stable beta branch, and RELENG_4_7 is the stable
branch. But it also helps to remember the original (although widely
forgotten) definition of "beta" testing: it is the final testing phase of a
design that is believed to be ready for production, and thus should be
intended to be as stable as a production system, and not as an
experimental testbed for new features. Perhaps by that definition,
-stable always WAS "beta", and it is the definition of "beta" that
has changed.
- Bob
>
> Regards,
> Lefteris Tsintjelis
>
> Peter Hoskin wrote:
> > STABLE is still a development branch. The name is misleading. If I were
> > you, I'd install & run release.
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Hununu wrote:
> > > > On 16 Nov 2002 at 13:47, Geoffrey C. Speicher wrote:
> > > > > > Am I expecting too much from FreeBSD-STABLE? Would I fair better
> > > > > > if I moved down into RELENG_4_7 and avoided -STABLE altogether?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you're expecting too much from -stable. -stable is kind of
> > > > > a misnomer; read the Handbook section 21.2.2.1 ("What Is
> > > > > FreeBSD-STABLE?") for more. Your conclusion above is addressed
> > > > > there (spoiler: don't use -stable in production unless your test
> > > > > environment convinces you that it will work).
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. I have some boxes that run -stable. Though, I cvsup and
> > > > install world & kernel on one box I can afford to fail. If it works
> > > > ok, then I slowly move it to others.. -STABLE is not meant to be rock
> > > > solid, and running it on production servers can be time-consuming for
> > > > various reasons.
> > >
> > > The thing is, I run -STABLE on about a dozen desktops and servers at my
> > > day job, and have never had a problem ... but they don't carry near as
> > > much load as venus/jupiter do ...
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
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?200211171306.31020.stest033>