Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:54:39 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: "Sameer R. Manek" <manek@ecst.csuchico.edu> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <20021120015439.GA403@papagena.rockefeller.edu> In-Reply-To: <LMEMIKHGPPEEMMMMGIENAEIKFAAA.manek@ecst.csuchico.edu> References: <20021119182803.L8853@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <LMEMIKHGPPEEMMMMGIENAEIKFAAA.manek@ecst.csuchico.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sameer R. Manek said on Nov 19, 2002 at 17:46:41: > > > > > > The handbook does not say this and hasn't for quite a while. It in > > fact recommends *against* tracking -stable if you only want to track > > security fixes. I think it puts things quite accurately: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current- > stable.html > > That is precisly the point, in the past the handbook had a different > defination of what constituded an acceptible use of -stable. Sure. But if you're running today's -stable, read today's handbook. Speaking for myself, while we non-developers are waiting for 5.0-RELEASE, I'd much rather have an evolving -stable with frequent MFC's, than a bugfix-only -stable. People who really need stability can always stick to the release branches. I'm not complaining... - Rahul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021120015439.GA403>