Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:44:42 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@iowna.com> To: "'mupi@Mknet.org'" <mupi@Mknet.org> Cc: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <01C0FEFE.8EB2BA80.wmoran@iowna.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is there a reason why you took this off the list? On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:52 AM, Mike Porter [SMTP:mupi@mknet.org] wrote: > On Wednesday 27 June 2001 07:11, you wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:07 PM, Chad R. Larson [SMTP:chad@DCFinc.com] > wrote: > > > If anyone is taking votes, I disagree. > > The -STABLE branch is not -BETA in any way that I can see. It's simply a > > low key development branch. Changes are tested in -CURRENT before > > being merged into -STABLE, therefore there's nothing -BETA about it. > > > > While I agree with most of what you said, I disagree here. Just because > *some* testing has been done, doesn't mean it isn't BETA. BETA software is > generally believed to be pretty stable, just a few minor kinks to work out. > At that point, getting it into the hands of the largest possible > cross-section of users makes sense, becuase collectively they are more likely > to excercise all of the features. Further, some features may work as > intended when the user follows all the correct steps in the correct sequence, > but how easy is it to get out of the sequence and break things? (Example (ok, > its a bad/simplified example but it demonstrates the point): Actually ... it's a good example. > So BETA testing takes place after a good deal of > previous "in house" development happens. This is the "alpha" test stage. > Why do you think they use "beta" (the SECOND letter of the greek alphbet) to > denote the SECOND test? It implies that there is an "alpha" or "first" test > before. thus -CURRENT is ALPHA level code, STABLE is BETA. That's also a relevent point. "alpha" and "beta" are generally used to describe testing sequences in/out of the developer circle. In a company, alpha testing is done by the developers or other employees of the company, while beta testing is done by providing the software to a select group of customers who have volunteered to test the software. This particular model falls apart when you have the FreeBSD development model. Reasons: 1) anyone who wants to test -CURRENT can, thus it doesn't fit typical expectation of "alpha" 2) the developers are generally also the users 3) The -STABLE branch is not *intended* to be for testing purposed only. It is *intended* to be a useable product. In the commercial world, a "beta" is NOT INTENDED for regular use, but for testing only. Thus, renaming the -STABLE branch would be a misnomer. > Of course, if you assume that STABLE is BETA level code, then you can expect > some glitches, and sometimes things WILL slip through the cracks and cause > major headaches...but *in general* you should have fairly stable code, with a > few bugs in it. You EXPECT (or SHOULD EXPECT) there to be bugs in > it....that's part of the development effort. No, according the the handbook, you should not *expect* there to be bugs in -STABLE, You should be wary, as the handbook warns you, but my experience with -STABLE over the last two years is that it's generally pretty reliable. The handbook also states that you should subscribe to the stable mailing list if you intend to track -STABLE, so anyone following the hanbook is going to be well informed when breakage occurs. I believe the recent changes to the handbook did an excellent job of clearing this up. -Bill 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?01C0FEFE.8EB2BA80.wmoran>