From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 10 16:40:49 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57B216A46B for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:40:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B92D13C447 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:40:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so225946nfb for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:40:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=6HIVj5Sod+B+K5kCoFYCUpDfxBAIlyaH4UX3ACIcZCE=; b=swfZlJo9bNZPqD4XHkcjpC8dTU+EzYrvOxRv4vgCzxTJ10h/8tFSIkUVH6HpR0PKmaaDhZ4CiHoLKdZZbOLkV8u8AsC9puIk6/CzCLEaXEw5DfBUYudokzHFRBmEZkIEla33dxiLB8CS65WKRodE/y5coxgB0jgyK2Nsfu3RuNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=to8rOSfjrItQRZGxjOLB/kvoJ7AfQZBfo7EMlZRctuDMbxqTur4dsMtL8dCD/X/BhKx9xR+C1PNbIPcOpen9SJKwzDNsjWRn4U3TNL62Ps85LEoXUVwaU9NBqe+NqThBHqe1GPzkZtCpRXy5UqLFxP5lr1jOzO82rvQiFBgGBsE= Received: by 10.86.73.17 with SMTP id v17mr705938fga.1192034447361; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.71.6 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:40:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <790a9fff0710100940v12539f86k3961d9009323fa1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:40:47 -0500 From: "Scot Hetzel" To: "Christian Baer" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggest renaming and extending the -CURRENT and -STABLE lines X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:40:49 -0000 On 10/10/07, Christian Baer wrote: > Hello people! > > Before you all bang around on my head :-) hear me out on this one. It's > actually possible that someone has already made this suggestion and I > haven't found that thread yet. If so, please point me in the right > direction and I'll read up on it, before writing in this thread again. > There was a thread on this a few years back when we only had the -CURRENT and -STABLE branches. The problem at that time was that when code was being back ported from -CURRENT to -STABLE it would break production machines that had been updated to the latest -STABLE code. The solution was to create the -STABLE security branches where only security and minor fixes were applied. > As the subject of this thread already suggests, I am referring to the > names of the developement branches, which I (even as a computer scientist) > consider a little "strange". > > If someone sees the result of RELENG_6 is called STABLE, he or she will > problably think, this is the line where bug fixes are added, security > problems fixed and the whole thing is meant for production systems. While > the first two things may be true, I would not suggest RELENG_6 for > production systems. Normally the -STABLE line works fine. But I *have* > times in the past where a driver was changes and suddenly the system > *didn't* work after a reboot or showed strange behaviour. > > What you could (and should?) use for a production system is RELENG_6_2. I > am using that, as you can see in the header. :-) Although the handbook > titles RELENG_6 as "staying stable...", people are warned not to use it on > production systems (which seems strange for something called "stable") > while RELENG_6_x isn't even mentioned. > The handbook needs a new section added to: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html which details what the -STABLE security branches (RELENG_x_y) are to be used for. : 23.2.2.2 Who Needs FreeBSD-STABLE? : 23.2.2.3 What are the FreeBSD-STABLE security branches? If you are interested in tracking the security of the current STABLE -RELEASE, then you should consider following the FreeBSD-STABLE security branch. The FreeBSD -STABLE security branches tracks only security and minor fixes relating to the currently supported STABLE -RELEASES. No major changes are made to these branches. Although we endeavor to ensure that the FreeBSD-STABLE security branch compiles and runs at all times, this cannot be guaranteed. We do not recommend that you blindly update any production servers to FreeBSD-STABLE security branch without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment. To use the -STABLE security branch you need to check out the FreeBSD sources using the RELENG_x_y tag. 23.2.2.5 Using FreeBSD-STABLE : Scot