Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:57:51 +0300 From: Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com> To: Christian Baer <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggest renaming and extending the -CURRENT and -STABLE lines Message-ID: <470CF67F.2020907@moneybookers.com> In-Reply-To: <feilee$2m3t$3@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net> References: <feilee$2m3t$3@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Christian Baer wrote: > Hello people! > > Before you all bang around on my head :-) hear me out on this one. It's > actually possible that someone has already made this suggestion and I > haven't found that thread yet. If so, please point me in the right > direction and I'll read up on it, before writing in this thread again. > This was discussed many times in -stable mail list (and probably on few others?) Anyway STABLE means stable API, so programs compiled on 6.2-RELEASE should work on 6.2-STABLE You can look for "ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!" - very long thread, but normally when something broke in -stable this thread start and start again. P.S. for me STABLE is very stable, and current CURRENT is even more stable (at least on new hardware), and I have both in production. -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?470CF67F.2020907>