Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:13:44 -0800 From: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@spymac.com> To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Cc: ptitoliv <ptitoliv@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> Subject: Re: Main differences between RELEASE_X and RELEASE_X_Y branches Message-ID: <200412051313.44805.krinklyfig@spymac.com> In-Reply-To: <41B32112.4000204@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> References: <41B23F3E.4060400@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> <20041205084637.0e830d1b@agnes.myhome.net> <41B32112.4000204@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 05 December 2004 06:54 am, ptitoliv <ptitoliv@frenchsuballiance.cjb.net> wrote: > >Well to the best of my knowledge, while STABLE is "stable" it is still in > >development, which means there could be occasional glitches that need > >ironed out. RELEASE is the branch that is the most tried and true. > >Occasional security and bug updates but ready for public consumption. > > > >I personally stick with RELEASE as it has the new features, and is > >less likely to have unexpected results. > > Hi, > > Thank you for your answer :). > > So according to you, it is better for a server to use a RELEASE version > than STABLE version. STABLE is a branch in development, while RELEASE is intended to be used in production. RELEASE will get security and other critical fixes only, while STABLE will get developed without production first in mind. IOW, STABLE might be unstable ... > And another question, is it necessary and important > to change when a new RELEASE is ... released ? No, except that RELEASEs eventually are dropped from being officially supported. 3.x is no longer supported. Chances are 3.x is not very secure, due to new threats which haven't been patched to it since it was dropped, but 4.x is good for a while even though 5.3 is the new RELEASE. - jt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200412051313.44805.krinklyfig>