Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
From:      "A. L. Meyers" <a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com>
To:        Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
Cc:        <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: is "stable" "stable"? 
Message-ID:  <20010723140335.S99402-100000@localhost.consult-meyers.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107231815400.71442-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Max Khon wrote:

> hi, there!
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote:
>
> > Well, Steve, at least someone understood my posting as I meant
> > it. Thanks!
> >
> > A comparison:
> > Debian GNU/Linux has 3 trees: 1. stable 2. testing 3. unstable
> >
> > "stable" there means exactly what it says. Although breaks are
> > not non-existent, they are extremely rare (never experienced one
> > personally, changes were security fixes).
>
> that's what for RELENG_4_3 branch was created
> (4.3-RELEASE + security fixes). When FreeBSD 4.4 will be out RELENG_4_4
> branch will also be created for security fixes
>
> /fjoe
>
>
Max,

do you suggest that if someone wants "stable-stable" not just
"stable" he should cvsup RELENG_4_3 instead of RELENG_4?

Lucien



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010723140335.S99402-100000>