Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:21:16 -0000 (GMT) From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> To: Morten Seeberg <morten@seeberg.dk> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <XFMail.991207132116.steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> In-Reply-To: <036901bf40b4$5573b300$1600a8c0@SOS>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07-Dec-99 Morten Seeberg wrote:
> Revising the release times for 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 I know realise that I´ve
> just misunderstood the way -STABLE works :) And that I should just start
> using RELEASE on my production machines, instead of -STABLE, which I thought
> was "better"/"more stable" than RELEASE.
Not a bad policy (IMHO). I would suggest looking at the errata files
for your chosen release (somtimes problems are found in the first few days of a
releases life) and keeping an eye out for security announcements.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tell a computer to WIN and ...
... You lose
-------------------------------------------------------
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?XFMail.991207132116.steve>