Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:54:09 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@hub.freebsd.org> To: Morten Seeberg <morten@seeberg.dk> Cc: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912081049120.61538-100000@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <036901bf40b4$5573b300$1600a8c0@SOS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Morten Seeberg wrote: > Revising the release times for 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 I know realise that I= =B4ve > just misunderstood the way -STABLE works :) And that I should just start > using RELEASE on my production machines, instead of -STABLE, which I thou= ght > was "better"/"more stable" than RELEASE. Probably a 'safer' policy if you don't want to worry about whether or not some committer has just temporarily broken -stable (bad committer! No biscuit!) is to wait for a -release, subscribe to this list and watch what problems people find with it, WAIT say two or three weeks, and then install -stable as of that date. Unfortunately a lot of people only jump on -release once it's already out the door instead of properly helping to beta-test, which means that the bug reports only come in after it's too late. These get immediately fixed in -stable, of course, which means that there's often a substantial improvement over the first few weeks after a release. Having said that, -stable doesn't change very much over time anyway (by definition), so whichever day you pick isn't likely to make much difference (in theory, only minor changes are made to -stable, so only minor things should break :-). Kris 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.BSF.4.21.9912081049120.61538-100000>