Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 12:56:33 -0000 (GMT) From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> To: Morten Seeberg <morten@seeberg.dk> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <XFMail.991207125633.steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> In-Reply-To: <033d01bf40af$e217ac80$1600a8c0@SOS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Dec-99 Morten Seeberg wrote:
> So there is actually really no easy way to stay updated on a production
> machine (which has to be stable at every cost), because RELEASE is the
only
> actual stable system known the everyday users?
This is an interesting topic in it's own right. There is a fairly large
body of opinion that the right way to treat a production system is never to
upgrade it at all, rather to periodically replace it with a well tested
replacement using later software. Another view is to track the release stream
before -stable (right now that would be 2.x) which continues to get major bug
fixes and security fixes for quite a long time after it stops getting features.
Another option is to watch the CVS commits on -stable and decide which ones you
need and apply them.
> Since 3.0 has been out for about a year, why not make more "RELEASE"
> versions during a year? Or just freeze a few snapshots during the STABLE
> branch?
Given a 30 day beta period on each release I think that time does not
permit more than three or four releases per year. Freezing snapshots doesn't
really help unless they are also heavily tested.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tell a computer to WIN and ...
... You lose
-------------------------------------------------------
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?XFMail.991207125633.steve>