Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:29:14 -0700 From: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <200107231630.AHQ09490@100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> of "Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:58:17 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107222354320.68200-100000@snafu.adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org>: >On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > >> It is very easy for a reasonable person to read (or more likely skim >> [tell me you don't do it]) the description of -STABLE in the handbook >> and conclude that it means what it sounds like, and then feel >> bamboozled when they get here. > >I've been known to skim a doc or two, but something this critical isn't >the place to skim. If the individual in question wishes to deploy a >highly stable environment, one would think that individual would take >great care - including following the suggestions made earlier by others >(regression testing, staging, etc.). > >If you're not willing to actually read docs, regression test, stage, and >do 'work' in general... Well, one could argue you get the amount of >stability you deserve. > >Later, >-Mike OK, but I don't really think that's a reason not to make the documentation clear. There are plenty of people who aren't mission critical, but just interested who end up losing when they don't have to. If you guys want to take it upon yourself to teach them a lesson, I suppose that's fine, but I was assuming that wasn't the case. Of course I butted in because I read the documentation and didn't get out of it any indication that -STABLE wasn't where I wanted to be. Certainly, the phrases: "the stable branch is effectively a bug-fix stream relative to the previous release", and "[-RELEASE is] really just a ``snapshot'' from the -STABLE branch that we put on CDROM," sure sound like where I want to be. I claim that there is a certain amount of stability being advertised there. If -STABLE was ALWAYS meant to be what you guys say, then I don't think whoever wrote that section of the handbook knew it. I notice that the changes have already appeared in the handbook at freebsd.org. Although it is much better, it keeps a lot of the same language and just adds qualification. For example, why do you want: "Any changes to this branch will have debuted in FreeBSD-CURRENT first, helping to reduce (but not eliminate) the chance that the changes will cause problems," instead of "Changes to this branch have not been widely tested and should not be depended on to work." You should also change the text in -CURRENT. The phrase "if you are new to FreeBSD, you are most likely going to want to think twice about running it" should be moved from -CURRENT to -STABLE but even stronger, like "unless you *really know what you are doing*, think twice before tracking -STABLE". Then replace that paragraph in -CURRENT with something like: "As you are reading this, keep in mind that FreeBSD-CURRENT is the ``bleeding edge'' of FreeBSD development and is not intended for users". And while you're making changes, statements like: "The current ports tree officially supports only FreeBSD-current and FreeBSD-stable." on http://freebsd.org/ports/ certainly don't help. That page even goes out of its way to push -STABLE: "Note that it will only change just enough files to enable ports/packages to be used; for a full upgrade to -STABLE, please refer to the synchronizing your source tree section of the handbook." Access to bugfixed ports is the main reason why I ever considered tracking -STABLE. I'm not whining about -STABLE, but then again I didn't lose. However, I think the current attitude toward people who end up losing after basically being led to -STABLE by the documentation is bad. It might be a good idea to add "NOTE: Since this documentation may be out of date with respect to -STABLE, you should never consider tracking it until you have read freebsd-stable for a couple of weeks." Steve 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?200107231630.AHQ09490>