Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:02:16 -0500 From: W Gerald Hicks <wghicks@bellsouth.net> To: brett@lariat.org Cc: grog@lemis.com, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of FreeBSD-STABLE (was: Oddity in name resolution) Message-ID: <19990320220216M.wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Mar 1999 23:07:31 -0700" <4.1.19990319230014.03f4e680@localhost> References: <4.1.19990319230014.03f4e680@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Subject: Re: Use of FreeBSD-STABLE (was: Oddity in name resolution) [gutted :)] > > >The text is being overly cautious. In particular, it doesn't mention > >that all these problems exist for all software, and that despite all > >that, -STABLE is the best we have at any particular time. > > Again, it depends on what you mean by "best." In -STABLE, the docs > don't necessarily match the software, and there isn't as much end user > experience with the build. This can make it less desirable than > an older -RELEASE. Anectodal evidence in favor of -STABLE: I run six machines on a nearly continuous treadmill of CVSup and make world here. By watching the -STABLE list I decide when to build them but always at least weekly. The last failure on these boxes was pilot induced and occurred almost a year ago. Most of the problems I've seen lately are not likely to affect a typical -STABLE user since they have been mostly related to the installation bits built by 'make release'. Watching releng3.freebsd.org to see when snapshots are available seems to be a good indicator as well. Cheers, Jerry Hicks wghicks@bellsouth.net 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?19990320220216M.wghicks>