Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:52:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "A. L. Meyers" <a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com> To: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu> Cc: <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <20010723093818.C434-100000@nomad.consult-meyers.com> In-Reply-To: <200107230634.AIV82906@100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG>: > >Very well said. This should be added to the handbook. :) > > In fact, let's look at some key words from that chapter: > > -CURRENT: "bleeding edge", "working sources", "un-compilable", > "active testers" > > -STABLE: "low key", "conservative", "commercial user", > "fully compilable and stable" > > There's also language in the -STABLE section that implies that bugs > are treated as emergency situations. Do you *really* wonder why it's > "so difficult for people to understand"? > > It is very easy for a reasonable person to read (or more likely skim > [tell me you don't do it]) the description of -STABLE in the handbook > and conclude that it means what it sounds like, and then feel > bamboozled when they get here. > > Steve Well, Steve, at least someone understood my posting as I meant it. Thanks! A comparison: Debian GNU/Linux has 3 trees: 1. stable 2. testing 3. unstable "stable" there means exactly what it says. Although breaks are not non-existent, they are extremely rare (never experienced one personally, changes were security fixes). The FreeBSD "stable" appears more comparable a mix of "stable" and "testing". Debian GNU/Linux only release a major "stable" update once yearly, a shorter interval being considered bug churning. It seems to me that it would be in the very best interest of FreeBSD to apply whatever quality controls are appropriate to ensure that "stable" means what it says. Do you seriously expect all users to go thru the testing procedures enumerated below? Most probably expect such things to be done by developers before new and/or improved code is incorporated into "stable". BTW: this is NOT an appeal to FreeBSD users to migrate to Debian GNU/Linux. There are no one-sided coins. e.g.: there are no souce trees (yet) in GNU/Linux with the functionality and transparency of sup. Greetings, Lucien > > >From: Lamont Granquist <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> > >Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? > >Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) > > > >> > >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: > >> > Having followed the postings here for a few weeks it seems, at > >> > least occasionally, that "stable" appears to be a bit less than > >> > "stable". > >> > >> You are doing a CVS checkout of a source tree that is getting updates > >> on a daily basis. If you have ever done this in a development environment > >> before, you should know that absolute 100% stability in any such an > >> environment is never, ever going to happen. > >> > >> If you want the latest -stable sources which *are* stable, then you > >> really need to checkout sources on a fresh machine, build your > >> distribution and spend a few days regression testing the features of the > >> OS which are important to you. You should then roll out the build to > >> your staging platform and give it at least a week or two. Following that > >> you should put it in the load balancing rotation on your production site, > >> and then gradually phase it in as you gain more confidence. > >> > >> Which, of course, you should be doing anyway. > >> > >> If you want better stability, then checkout the actual 4.x releases with > >> the security fixes. Those have actually been frozen and then bugfixed for > >> stability. They should be better. > >> > >> Why is this so difficult for people to understand? *ANY* time you are > >> checking out the head of a development branch (even one where developers > >> are supposedly being "more careful") then you should expect to > >> occasionally see problems. People will break the build. People will have > >> insufficiently tested their code and subsystems will break. I guarantee > >> you that none of the FBSD developers have a sufficient testing matrix to > >> *ensure* that the changes which are checked into the top of the tree will > >> run on every platform out there (consider for a moment just how big the > >> x86 testing matrix is). I'm pretty damned impressed that -stable works as > >> well as it does (kudos for the developers). > >> > >> > >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > >with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > -- This message is only for the addressee(s). If you receive it by error, please delete it and inform the sender. We encourage the use of pgp-encrypted e-mail. Welcome to: http://www.consult-meyers.com "Say what you think. Do what you say." 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?20010723093818.C434-100000>