Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:34:45 +1200 (NZST) From: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org> To: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, "joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us" <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>, "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106270929340.6316-100000@vimfuego.saarinen.org> In-Reply-To: <20010626140650.B9911@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Chad R. Larson wrote: > Actually, -CURRENT is "development" and -STABLE is "QA/BETA" and > -RELEASE is what most folks would think of as "stable". So, why > don't we name them like that? I wouldn't have a problem with > -DEVEL, -BETA, -RELEASE, and perhaps putting -STABLE on the new > RELENG_X_Y branch. I think that would clear up a lot of the confusion. It's kind of hard to accept that -STABLE doesn't necessarily mean "stable" (currently), if you see what I mean ;-). For a production environment, you'd install -RELEASE, and then apply the "hotfixes" which are part of -STABLE (ie. RELENG_X_Y); makes sense to me. -- Regards, Juha PGP fingerprint: B7E1 CC52 5FCA 9756 B502 10C8 4CD8 B066 12F3 9544 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?Pine.LNX.4.33.0106270929340.6316-100000>