Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:06:30 -0400 From: "Matthew Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> To: "Rasputin" <rara.rasputin@virgin.net>, <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Releases Message-ID: <001b01c0c106$a897f770$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> References: <030e01c0c0fb$52b2fcc0$340410ac@JRAFTERY> <200104091358.JAA13889@sjt-u10.cisco.com> <20010409154800.A24937@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Steve Tremblett <sjt@cisco.com> [010409 14:59]: > > +--- James Raftery wrote: > > | Argh! RELENG_4 is *always* 4-STABLE. An RC is a particularly "stable" > > | phase of 4-STABLE development because it's subject to a code-freeze and > > | is about to become a -RELEASE. > > > To be honest, FreeBSD's definition of BETA or RELEASE CANDIDATE is > > contrary to common understanding of the terms. BETA or RC implies new > > code that is currently in the testing phase (well RC implies that it is > > almost ready for release, but it still hasn't been proven as ready). > > How is that different for FreeBSD then? The RC designation seems to be "normal". The BETA designation does not. Is there any reason why we really need a -BETA tag, or could we just go from -STABLE to -RC1? I think this would be less confusing to people who are new to FreeBSD's scheme of things. [ On a related note, -CURRENT seems to suggest the wrong thing. I've had the unlucky experience of recovering production boxes (!!) that previous admins had decided to update to -CURRENT because, hey, it must be the best code, right? IMHO, -CURRENT should be -DEV. That's a pretty clear indication that it shouldn't be run on production boxes. ] -- Matt Emmerton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001b01c0c106$a897f770$1200a8c0>