From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Apr 5 7: 3:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail.yadt.co.uk (yadt.demon.co.uk [158.152.4.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DB5637B43C for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davidt@yadt.co.uk) Received: (qmail 28192 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2001 14:03:18 -0000 Received: from gattaca.local.yadt.co.uk (HELO mail.gattaca.yadt.co.uk) (qmailr@10.0.0.2) by xfiles.yadt.co.uk with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 14:03:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 34355 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Apr 2001 14:03:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:03:16 +0100 From: David Taylor To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC Message-ID: <20010405150316.A14600@gattaca.yadt.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20010405134044.A72405@scientia.demon.co.uk> <200104051347.JAA03586@sjt-u10.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104051347.JAA03586@sjt-u10.cisco.com>; from sjt@cisco.com on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:47:24 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 05 Apr 2001, Steve Tremblett wrote: > +--- Ben Smithurst wrote: > |=20 > | Did you read the first sentence of that FAQ entry? "Short answer: it's > | just a name." > |=20 > | If you cvsup the RELENG_4 branch, you're getting FreeBSD-stable, whether > | it be called -STABLE, -RC, -BETA, -FISHCAKE, -UNSTABLE-AS-HELL, or > | even -CURRENT if someone felt like playing an April Fool's day joke in > | /sys/conf/newvers.sh. :-) > |=20 >=20 > I was under the impression that 4-STABLE was primarily for bugfixes > applied to the 4.2-RELEASE codebase, and 4-CURRENT is for development > of new features. Given that rationale, 4.3-RC should be a preliminary > merge of CURRENT code into STABLE. The intruduction of (relatively) > unproven code into an established as-stable-as-possible codebase > introduces instability until after it has been tested, therefore just > because 4.3-RC =3D=3D 4-STABLE, that does not imply that 4.3-RC =3D=3D st= able. You were under the wrong impression then. 4.0-CURRENT was around, and developed into something stable and working, and went through a 4.0-BETA.. 4.0-RC code-freeze, before becoming 4.0-RELEASE. At that point, 4.0-STABLE was forked off, and the main branch was renamed 5.0-CURRENT, which started development of 5.0, which is still going on today.. Meanwhile, 4.0-STABLE had bugfixes and features MFCed (Merge from current) to it, and became 4.1-BETA, 4.1-RC, 4.1-RELEASE, through the appropriate code freeze stuff... Then it became 4.1-STABLE, and so on, until now, when it's 4.2-STABLE, then was renamed 4.3-BETA, 4.3-RC, and will shortly be tagged as 4.3-RELEASE.... > People aren't concerned with the NAME, they are concerned about That's all it is. a name. if you cvsup to RELENG_4, you're getting the latest code from the 4.x-STABLE branch, be it a -STABLE, -BETA, -RC, or even a tagged -RELEASE. > updating production machines to what is supposedly the latest bugfixed > version, and getting a beta version instead. While the code in the new BETA > STABLE in terms of stability and quality (theoretically, anyway) > features may be of the highest quality and could possibly be bug free, > if I'm running a frontline webserver I don't want to be the guy who > discovers a bug in this new code. Then again, once I have a working > config on that webserver, I shouldn't be updating all that often and > only for specific fixes, but that is another can of worms. > > I'd prefer to stay with 4-STABLE from the date of the codefreeze as > opposed to 4.3-RC. I'll be waiting until 4.3-RELEASE before updating. >=20 And here you contradict yourself. "the date of the code freeze" -- after that point the code is frozen, so new features _can't_ be added. Only bug fixes are added. It's entirely your choice when you want to upgrade, but 4.3-BETA is closer to -RELEASE stability than -STABLE from a few weeks before it... --=20 David Taylor davidt@yadt.co.uk --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6zHskfIqKXSsJ/xERAnMAAJ40BfissR4buiWdmGGlurLPhEU3cwCfbkR7 4Szw8BrYLSD2ghBME0vs320= =kOW4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message