From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 7 4:40:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from www.menzor.org (themoonismadeofgreenchease.dk [195.249.147.160]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8592514F4E for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 04:40:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ml@seeberg.dk) Received: from SOS (gw.danadata.com [194.239.79.3]) by www.menzor.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA18054; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:57:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@seeberg.dk) Message-ID: <033d01bf40af$e217ac80$1600a8c0@SOS> Reply-To: "Morten Seeberg" From: "Morten Seeberg" To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" , References: Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:37:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.5600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" To: "Morten Seeberg" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 1:31 PM Subject: RE: is -STABLE really stable? > > But from my experience, STABLE is often is more unstable than RELEASEs, can > > this be true? Is it due to the changes which are made on a day-to-day basis > > on STABLE?? > It can be true, RELEASEs usually follow a beta test period during which > the commits are constrained somewhat. STABLE usually contains bug fixes and > features merged from current. 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? 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? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message