Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:44:12 -0400 From: "Jamie Bowden" <ragnar@sysabend.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <d6895b7d0609140844re8260fel953ddfeff0a9edf8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200609100159.k8A1xAIn089481@drugs.dv.isc.org> References: <20060909182831.GA32004@FS.denninger.net> <200609100159.k8A1xAIn089481@drugs.dv.isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote: > > Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right? > No. STABLE means STABLE API. > If you want stable code you run releases. Between releases > stable can become unstable. Think of stable as permanent > BETA code. Changes have passed the first level of testing > in current which is permanent ALPHA code. No, this is what it means now. I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1, and -STABLE used to mean exactly that. The developement branch was -C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing. You were not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off. This change to the current structure wasn't meant to be permanent when it was done (between 4 and 5, IIRC), and was only done out of necessity because the changes across that major release were huge. FreeBSD needs an interim track that mirrors what -STABLE used to be, which is a track between point releases that can be relied upon (and RELEASE_x_y doesn't work, since it only addresses security and bugs deemed worthy, which most aren't). -- Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d6895b7d0609140844re8260fel953ddfeff0a9edf8>