From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 23:07:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC38916A416 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kline@sage.thought.org) Received: from sage.thought.org (dsl231-043-140.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.231.43.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C3043D4C for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:07:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kline@sage.thought.org) Received: from sage.thought.org (kline@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sage.thought.org (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k8EN77lS099890 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kline@sage.thought.org) Received: (from kline@localhost) by sage.thought.org (8.13.6/8.13.1/Submit) id k8EN75qa099887; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:07:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kline) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:07:05 -0700 From: Gary Kline To: Jamie Bowden Message-ID: <20060914230705.GB99220@thought.org> References: <20060909182831.GA32004@FS.denninger.net> <200609100159.k8A1xAIn089481@drugs.dv.isc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Organization: Thought Unlimited. Public service Unix since 1986. X-Of_Interest: Observing twenty years of service to the Unix community User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:07:09 -0000 On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews 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). > YES [bar]. Until then I'm wedged into running -RELEASE (and occasionally praying to the computer gods. > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix