Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:45:44 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "R. Hartman" <rhartman@xs4all.nl>, "FreeBSD Questions" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mysterious boot during the night Message-ID: <00c201c170c5$d4222400$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <005201c1706f$572afb80$6600000a@ach.domain> <20011119124150.R16195@monorchid.lemis.com> <005901c170a2$1cd5efc0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <200111182159.11756@starbreaker.net> <20011119135936.S16195@monorchid.lemis.com> <001901c170c0$ce2ef460$9600000a@custcom>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It would seem, then, that I'm best off just sticking with RELEASE, no? ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Hartman" <rhartman@xs4all.nl> To: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 07:09 Subject: Re: Mysterious boot during the night >From the explanation below of STABLE it seems to me that this branch is less reliable than RELEASE regardless of the fact that it includes bug fixes. Especially the last two lines suggest to me that Matthew Graybosch was right. >From http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html: 19.2.2.1 What Is FreeBSD-STABLE? FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT first for testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users. Regards, Ronald Hartman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00c201c170c5$d4222400$0a00000a>