Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:00:05 +0100 From: Bartosz Fabianowski <freebsd@chillt.de> To: Jon Holstrom <jon@web-tricks.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freeBSD 5.5 Prerelease ( 5.4 stable ) Message-ID: <43ECF0C5.7000306@chillt.de> In-Reply-To: <00aa01c62e76$6e552410$fac8a8c0@dragon> References: <43E7EDA2.7070807@rogers.com> <001201c62b84$4d591900$fac8a8c0@dragon> <20060207014535.GA10328@xor.obsecurity.org> <3aaaa3a0602082040l4917c5cfo@mail.gmail.com> <20060209054333.GA68771@xor.obsecurity.org> <00aa01c62e76$6e552410$fac8a8c0@dragon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> but i need a working OS, not a bata ! If you don't like using a beta (nothing wrong with that), you definitely should not be using -stable either. There are even less promises regarding the reliability and quality of -stable than there are of a beta. After all, during the prerelease and beta cycles, the tree is getting in shape for a release and there is a focus on fixing as many little nits as possible. In between releases, bigger MFCs might hit -stable from time to time and make it less reliable. So, while you are getting confused by the branch name changing, you should also rethink whether you want -stable at all. It really seems like you should be aiming for RELENG_5_4 (and then RELENG_5_5 once 5.5 is out) instead. - Bartosz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43ECF0C5.7000306>