From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Apr 5 6:56:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pcwin002.win.tue.nl (pcwin002.win.tue.nl [131.155.71.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F7637B43E; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:56:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stijn@pcwin002.win.tue.nl) Received: (from stijn@localhost) by pcwin002.win.tue.nl (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f35Dub345856; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:56:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stijn) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:56:36 +0200 From: Stijn Hoop To: Steve Tremblett Cc: Ben Smithurst , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC Message-ID: <20010405155636.K31062@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <20010405134044.A72405@scientia.demon.co.uk> <200104051347.JAA03586@sjt-u10.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104051347.JAA03586@sjt-u10.cisco.com>; from sjt@cisco.com on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:47:24AM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:47:24AM -0400, Steve Tremblett wrote: > I was under the impression that 4-STABLE was primarily for bugfixes > applied to the 4.2-RELEASE codebase, and 4-CURRENT is for development > of new features. Given that rationale, 4.3-RC should be a preliminary > merge of CURRENT code into STABLE. The intruduction of (relatively) > unproven code into an established as-stable-as-possible codebase > introduces instability until after it has been tested, therefore just > because 4.3-RC == 4-STABLE, that does not imply that 4.3-RC == stable. That's just not true; during code freeze, the number of features that are brought in from 5-CURRENT is *minimized* so as to avoid further regression. So, 4.3-RC is by all definitions *more* stable than your 'pre-RC'. > People aren't concerned with the NAME, they are concerned about > updating production machines to what is supposedly the latest bugfixed > version, and getting a beta version instead. 4.3-RC{2} *IS* the bugfixed version. If we, the userbase, don't find any bugs within the intended release schedule, nothing is changed and it simply begets the name 4.3-RELEASE for a very short period in time, and then reverts to 4.3-STABLE (or RELENG_4). > While the code in the new > features may be of the highest quality and could possibly be bug free, > if I'm running a frontline webserver I don't want to be the guy who > discovers a bug in this new code. Indeed, then you should refrain from updating your server at all, unless due to security risks. From one -RELEASE to the next, new features are introduced in -STABLE. They should be bug free in the next -RELEASE exactly due to the -BETA and -RC periods. > Then again, once I have a working > config on that webserver, I shouldn't be updating all that often and > only for specific fixes, but that is another can of worms. Correct. > I'd prefer to stay with 4-STABLE from the date of the codefreeze as > opposed to 4.3-RC. I'll be waiting until 4.3-RELEASE before updating. Which (in theory) will get you no new features, just bugfixes. --Stijn -- Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message