From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun May  4 16:22:19 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22541
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lariat.lariat.org ([129.72.251.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22535
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from solo.lariat.org ([129.72.251.10])
	by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01364
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sun, 4 May 1997 17:21:31 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970504172100.006ee1d0@lariat.org>
X-Sender: brett@lariat.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 17:21:00 -0600
To: questions@freebsd.org
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: How good are intermediate versions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I'm working with a lightly-loaded machine that's used primarily for
networking tasks. It does a little Web service and some PPP via "dumb"
UARTs. It has an EISA motherboard and an Adaptec EISA SCSI Twin host
adapter. (I'm not sure which chips it uses, but they might be the ones with
which Justin was having some headaches.)

The machine is still running 2.1.5, with patches to close security holes. I
am considering upgrading it to either:

a) 2.2.1-R;
b) The 4/22/97 snapshot of the 2.2 "RELENG" branch
   (Why isn't it called something like 2.2.5-SNAP?); or 
c) The 5/2/97 snapshot of 3.0-current.

Which would work best, given the model of SCSI adapter and the stability of
the various releases?

--Brett