Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:18:20 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> To: juha@saarinen.org Cc: mixtim@home.com, rjackson@cs.csubak.edu, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore? Message-ID: <20010611161820O.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106121049560.5609-100000@vimfuego.saarinen.org> References: <20010611153217J.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106121049560.5609-100000@vimfuego.saarinen.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org> Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore? Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:51:31 +1200 (NZST) > I'm confused about this. The Handbook says to track -STABLE, if errr... > you want stability. Are you saying that in order to have a stable system, > we should stick with -RELEASE? The handbook also says: Warning: The FreeBSD-STABLE tree endeavors, above all, to be fully compilable and stable at all times, but we do occasionally make mistakes (these are still active sources with quickly-transmitted updates, after all). We also do our best to thoroughly test fixes in FreeBSD-CURRENT before bringing them into FreeBSD-STABLE, but sometimes our tests fail to catch every case. Which means that you shouldn't track it if you have no tolerance for such things. That's what -releases are for. - Jordan 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?20010611161820O.jkh>