From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 16 22:36:11 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE2116A41F for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:36:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: from opusnet.com (mail.opusnet.com [209.210.200.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F7F43D45 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:36:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: from localhost.localhost [70.98.246.232] by opusnet.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id AA54A9A100C0; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:36:04 -0700 Received: from localhost.localhost (localhost.localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localhost (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7GMau4G054902; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:36:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localhost (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j7GMaoAK054899; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from garys@opusnet.com) To: Carstea Catalin References: From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:36:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Carstea Catalin's message of "Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:37 -0700") Message-ID: <4t1x4twltp.x4t@mail.opusnet.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.17 (Jumbo Shrimp, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stable server X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:36:11 -0000 Carstea Catalin writes: > what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? The Handbook recommends against using a stable branch (RELENG_5 or RELENG_4, which might not even compile) without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment. But if one is going to thoroughly test the code, one might as will use HEAD, except that it is likely to fail and be a waste of time (or your testing is not thorough enough). So it seems to me that one's choice is between thorough testing of RELENG_5 or less thorough testing of RELENG_5_4 or RELENG_4_11. I'll leave it to those with more experience for choosing between the last two, but it sounds like it's a toss-up, with some recommendations being influenced by conservatism or a desire for more "5" testers. :) Another factor (besides testing effort) in the choice between RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_4 is the number of fixes as measured by the time since RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE.