Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Steve Tremblett <sjt@cisco.com>
To:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Releases
Message-ID:  <200104101336.JAA16571@sjt-u10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010409102526S.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> from "Jordan Hubbard" at Apr 09, 2001 10:25:26 AM

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+--- Jordan Hubbard wrote:
| 
| > By this designation, we could call a brake a clutch and get away with it
| > because it's all documented.  The problem is not with the documentation.
| > It's with the name.
| 
| That's a nice pat answer, but the problem is that for every value of
| "name" we propose, somebody comes forward and says "But that confuses
| me."  We can't call it BETA, we can't call it STABLE, we can't call it
| RC, we can't call it PRERELEASE, because each and every one of those
| have had push-back from people who said it would conflict with
| previous definitions they hold dear.  Given that, chances are
| excellent that any other halfway logical names we come up with will
| suffer from the same problem.
| 
| The real problem here is that we're trying to cater to the lowest
| common denominator, which is stupid people who leap before they look
| and then blame someone else for the injuries they sustain.  It is for
| those very same people that legal liability forced McDonalds to write
| "Warning: This is called hot coffee.  That means it is Hot.  You
| should never, ever dump it into your crotch or on any other part of
| your body which is intended to remain unscalded. Did we mention that
| it's very hot?"
| 

Insulting those who misunderstand isn't a solution either.

People say "read the handbook".  If it is written in stone there,
someone please re-edit this section:

--------
19.2.2.2. Who needs FreeBSD-STABLE?

If you are a commercial user or someone who puts maximum stability of
their FreeBSD system before all other concerns, you should consider
tracking stable. This is especially true if you have installed the most
recent release (4.2-RELEASE at the time of this writing) since the
stable branch is effectively a bug-fix stream relative to the previous
release.
--------

please add "once every few months it will say BETA but don't worry, it
isn't really a beta, because it is more stable than STABLE!"

To be honest, I don't see the release process discussed in the handbook
at all!  There is a section explaining STABLE vs. CURRENT, but that's
about it.

I reiterate:  the term BETA implies the testing phase of new code.  The
FBSD folks insist that it is just STABLE, and have to answer endless
questions about it.  If it is just STABLE, and more solid than STABLE,
why have a BETA at all?

Sorry for opening this can of worms - my apologies.

my $0.02 (Canadian)

-- 
Steve Tremblett

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?200104101336.JAA16571>