Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:45:01 -0800 From: David Kirchner <dpk@dpk.net> To: Steve Bertrand <iaccounts@ibctech.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <questions@freebsd.org>, RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Subject: Re: Release engineering confusion Message-ID: <35c231bf0511161645y1dbf3f08v8e19f334847f9767@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051117001903.08B0043D55@mx1.FreeBSD.org> References: <200511170004.31463.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <20051117001903.08B0043D55@mx1.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/16/05, Steve Bertrand <iaccounts@ibctech.ca> wrote: > Thank you. However, that entire page out of the handbook pretty much > clarifies that a production environment should *not* track either STABLE > or CURRENT. > > So I'm assuming I'm best off with RELENG_6_0 etc, etc? Does anyone here > actually run STABLE or CURRENT in a production environment? I've > personally had the most luck with RELENG_4 which is still my main box, > but now my curiosity has got the best of me. > > Steve Ultimately it depends on how much downtime and difficulty you're willing to endure, just in case the -STABLE branch ends up not working for your servers for some particular reason. We use -RELEASE almost exclusively (we have one -STABLE machine, because we needed a newer version of a kernel driver) as we manage hundreds of servers, and there's no one -STABLE release (to properly describe the -STABLE version you're using you have to have the date and time of the cvsup, as opposed to -RELEASE versions being like 5.4-RELEASE-p9). It's easier, and thus more reliable, for us to have stable(heh) version strings. If you're just working with a handful of servers, -STABLE would probably be fine, as long as you have backups and know how to revert to previous versions when it becomes necessary.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35c231bf0511161645y1dbf3f08v8e19f334847f9767>