From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jul 22 23:48:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from 100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net (100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net [24.234.0.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4379B37B401 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:48:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from slumos@nevada.edu) Received: from nevada.edu (cm246.19.234.24.lvcm.com [24.234.19.246]) by 100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AIV82906; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200107230634.AIV82906@100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? In-Reply-To: Message from Jordan Hubbard of "Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:55:10 PDT." <20010721135510Y.jkh@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:33:11 -0700 From: Steve Lumos Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jordan Hubbard : >Very well said. This should be added to the handbook. :) In fact, let's look at some key words from that chapter: -CURRENT: "bleeding edge", "working sources", "un-compilable", "active testers" -STABLE: "low key", "conservative", "commercial user", "fully compilable and stable" There's also language in the -STABLE section that implies that bugs are treated as emergency situations. Do you *really* wonder why it's "so difficult for people to understand"? It is very easy for a reasonable person to read (or more likely skim [tell me you don't do it]) the description of -STABLE in the handbook and conclude that it means what it sounds like, and then feel bamboozled when they get here. Steve >From: Lamont Granquist >Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) > >> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: >> > Having followed the postings here for a few weeks it seems, at >> > least occasionally, that "stable" appears to be a bit less than >> > "stable". >> >> You are doing a CVS checkout of a source tree that is getting updates >> on a daily basis. If you have ever done this in a development environment >> before, you should know that absolute 100% stability in any such an >> environment is never, ever going to happen. >> >> If you want the latest -stable sources which *are* stable, then you >> really need to checkout sources on a fresh machine, build your >> distribution and spend a few days regression testing the features of the >> OS which are important to you. You should then roll out the build to >> your staging platform and give it at least a week or two. Following that >> you should put it in the load balancing rotation on your production site, >> and then gradually phase it in as you gain more confidence. >> >> Which, of course, you should be doing anyway. >> >> If you want better stability, then checkout the actual 4.x releases with >> the security fixes. Those have actually been frozen and then bugfixed for >> stability. They should be better. >> >> Why is this so difficult for people to understand? *ANY* time you are >> checking out the head of a development branch (even one where developers >> are supposedly being "more careful") then you should expect to >> occasionally see problems. People will break the build. People will have >> insufficiently tested their code and subsystems will break. I guarantee >> you that none of the FBSD developers have a sufficient testing matrix to >> *ensure* that the changes which are checked into the top of the tree will >> run on every platform out there (consider for a moment just how big the >> x86 testing matrix is). I'm pretty damned impressed that -stable works as >> well as it does (kudos for the developers). >> >> >> 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message