From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 28 11:36:08 2003
Return-Path: <owner-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 39B6616A4CF
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com
	[66.111.4.26])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8FB43FBF
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:36:07 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from judmarc@fastmail.fm)
Received: from smtp.us2.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EDED037A226; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 10.202.2.133 ([10.202.2.133] helo=smtp.us2.messagingengine.com)
	by messagingengine.com  with SMTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:05 -0500
Received: by smtp.us2.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99)
	id 7872D7A010; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:36:04 -0500 (EST)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2  (F2.71; T1.001; A1.51; B2.12; Q2.03)
From: "Jud" <judmarc@fastmail.fm>
To: "Jason Williams" <jwilliams@courtesymortgage.com>,
	"freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:04 -0400
X-Epoch: 1067369765
X-Sasl-enc: nS/MxFCDNz7Ca1EdIvJH8A
References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028085609.00afa820@pop.courtesymortgage.com>
	<5.2.1.1.0.20031028105856.00ac2ad0@pop.courtesymortgage.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028105856.00ac2ad0@pop.courtesymortgage.com>
Message-Id: <20031028193604.7872D7A010@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com>
Subject: Re: Clarification on CVS Tags
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:36:08 -0000


On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:00:32 -0800, "Jason Williams"
<jwilliams@courtesymortgage.com> said:
> Thanks Matthew for your explanation. You answered a lot of my questions.
> Makes sense now really.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why would someone want to use:
> 
> RELENG_4_8_0_RELEASE?
> 
> Is there some type of benefit?
> One would think that the best option for production servers is:
> 
> RELENG_4_8
> 
> THanks for your insight.

Releases are thoroughly tested through multiple release candidate stages,
but bugs occasionally slip through even there.  The security/bugfix
branch is not as widely tested, but is reliable to the extent that a few
isolated fixes shouldn't break anything and can undergo fairly thorough
testing by relatively fewer people.

There are those who will trust the thorough testing theory more than the
few-isolated-fixes theory.  Also, particular production servers may not
be running the piece of the base system in which a security hole is
found, e.g., sendmail.  Both are legitimate reasons to stick with the
release rather than the security branch.

Jud