From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 11 13:10:23 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C16216A420 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:10:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from mx2.netclusive.de (mx2.netclusive.de [89.110.132.132]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED1513C481 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:10:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from news@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net) Received: from nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Fdd69.f.ppp-pool.de [195.4.221.105]) (Authenticated sender: ncf1534p2) by mx2.netclusive.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584028983F4 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:10:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by nermal.rz1.convenimus.net (Postfix, from userid 8) id 309061521D; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:02:35 +0200 (CEST) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Path: not-for-mail From: Christian Baer Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.current Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:02:35 +0200 (CEST) Organization: Convenimus Projekt Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <470CF67F.2020907@moneybookers.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sunny.rz1.convenimus.net X-Trace: nermal.rz1.convenimus.net 1192107755 93945 192.168.100.5 (11 Oct 2007 13:02:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@convenimus.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:02:35 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD/6.2-RELEASE-p8 (sparc64)) Subject: Re: suggest renaming and extending the -CURRENT and -STABLE lines X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:10:23 -0000 On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:57:51 +0300 Stefan Lambrev wrote: > Anyway STABLE means stable API, so programs compiled on 6.2-RELEASE > should work on 6.2-STABLE Sometimes I wish people would actually read a post before answering it. I thought that was more of a German fault than an international one. :-) I didn't need explaining what the -STABLE branch is or what it stands for. But it doesn't make any difference anyway because I still believe the name STABLE is picked badly. I novice user cannot possibly know what to expect or what's behind that. The word "stable" implies that the system is actually kept stable as a goal, not that a new driver or kernel mod could actually break the system or prevent it from booting. > You can look for "ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR > code?!" - very long thread, but normally when something broke in -stable > this thread start and start again. Your point? No insult intended, I just haven't got a clue what you are trying to tell me (us). > P.S. for me STABLE is very stable, and current CURRENT is even more > stable (at least on new hardware), > and I have both in production. The important words being "for me". For one, if -CURRENT is as stable as you say, why bother with releases anyway? For seconds... :-) I have had more than one day, where an update from one -STABLE to another (both within one release) broke the system. I can distinctly remember an ata(4) driving causing very interesting - but incorrect - data being written to discs. It was bleeding-edge at the time. Ok, it was fixed pretty quickly but that's not the issue. If that happens on a database server in some firm, the boss will be slightly - ahem - "mad"... Regards Chris