Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:15:28 +0200 From: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru> Cc: Kenneth Mays <kmays2000@hotmail.com>, scrappy@hub.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?) Message-ID: <3DD7CEB0.F2A9C2F8@ene.asda.gr> References: <F32yELid1epQzz4IXQp00019522@hotmail.com> <20021117224945.A806@grosbein.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:14:51AM -0500, Kenneth Mays wrote: > > > Your question brings up an issue that was talked about several times, and it > > was addressed in the docs and the newsgroup. -STABLE is an engineering > > development branch that is 'more stable' than -CURRENT, but not more stable > > than -RELEASE. -STABLE is NOT for end users/customers for official > > production use (i.e. do so at your own risk). > > I wonder why no one says that -STABLE really WAS stable and WAS intended > for end users less than 2 years ago. Moreover, Hanbook said you > need -STABLE if you are using FreeBSD in production environment > and you need stability, Handbook said it even 15 months ago. > And it has been assetring so for long time, that's where the name > of this branch came from. Anyone can see that in CVS. > > Eugene Grosbein NOW THAT was making a lot of sense two years ago. Well, MY answer is that I am very new to FreeBSD so I wouldn't really know the branch name history but I couldn't agree any more with the old terminology you are referring too. PS: I think that this should be a chat thread though. LEfteris Tsintjelis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DD7CEB0.F2A9C2F8>