Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:36:04 -0400 From: "Jud" <judmarc@fastmail.fm> To: "Jason Williams" <jwilliams@courtesymortgage.com>, "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Clarification on CVS Tags Message-ID: <20031028193604.7872D7A010@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028105856.00ac2ad0@pop.courtesymortgage.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20031028085609.00afa820@pop.courtesymortgage.com> <5.2.1.1.0.20031028105856.00ac2ad0@pop.courtesymortgage.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031028193604.7872D7A010>