Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:13:01 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: release cycle Message-ID: <465C894D.8080909@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <465C84B5.10500@samsco.org> References: <465BF62B.6090904@vwsoft.com> <20070529102929.GA49322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <465C06CE.6000703@delphij.net> <465C4624.5020004@freebsd.org> <465C49B5.8080003@freebsd.org> <465C84B5.10500@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: > Colin Percival wrote: >> I point releases have been obsoleted by errata notices. In the past when >> X.Y.Z-RELEASE has happened, it has been because of critical bugs in the >> X.Y-RELEASE which there wasn't any other mechanism to fix. Now that we >> have errata noticed and FreeBSD Update is in the base system, it's vastly >> easier for users to run "freebsd-update fetch install" than it is for >> them to upgrade to a new release. > > Not really. 5.2.1 existed because people were having problems getting > 5.2 installed on their ATA disks. If you have big problems with storage > or network, freebsd-update isn't going to be of much use to you. Good point, I was forgetting exactly what the problems were that time. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465C894D.8080909>