Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:09:02 -0600 From: Andrew Hesford <ajh3@chmod.ath.cx> To: Matt Martini <martini@invision.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.3-BETA Message-ID: <20010319230902.A90772@cec.wustl.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103192311210.62820-100000@aeon.invision.net>; from martini@invision.net on Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:30:16PM -0500 References: <20010319214915.A33199@cec.wustl.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103192311210.62820-100000@aeon.invision.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is not what I pointed out. -CURRENT is what you get for the bleeding edge. -STABLE is what you get for stable code. The changes in -STABLE are minor and well-tested; in contrast, there is no guarantee that -CURRENT will even build on a given day. The big source of confusion on this list is the distinction between BETA, STABLE, RC and RELEASE. As long as people understand that all are the same code branch, there should be no trouble. I've been using FreeBSD for two months (coming from the Linux crowd), and I find nothing confusing about the nomenclature. All one needs to remember is that if your supfile says RELENG_4, you're stable... if it says ".", you're not. On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 11:30:16PM -0500, Matt Martini wrote: > If I'm an admin who wants a solid, tested, dare I say stable, operating > system to run in my production enviornment I would want to grab a codebase > called "STABLE." > > If I'm a developer, or just having fun with FreeBSD and I WANT to live on > the bleeding edge then I would grab a codebase named "CURRENT." > > But as Andrew as pointed out this is NOT the was FreeBSD works at all. -- Andrew Hesford ajh3@chmod.ath.cx 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?20010319230902.A90772>