From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 23 0:26:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mrelay.jrc.it (mrelay.jrc.it [139.191.1.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168C01517D for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick.hibma@jrc.it) Received: from elpc36.jrc.it (elpc36.jrc.it [139.191.71.36]) by mrelay.jrc.it (LMC5692) with SMTP id JAA29735; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:23:47 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:23:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Nick Hibma X-Sender: n_hibma@elpc36.jrc.it Reply-To: Nick Hibma To: Frode Vatvedt Fjeld Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lnc0: broke for us between 3.1 and 4.0? In-Reply-To: <2h3e1rbydz.fsf@dslab7.cs.uit.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > And does this all mean that if I want my kernel source tree to be > consistent more often than not (and any errors be fixed as soon as > possible), I'd be better off switching from -stable to -current? Yes and no. Stable will give you a broken tree less often. But people in Current have a habit of fixing things first in Current :-) The ideal combination: Running stable and keeping track of current, backporting whatever you think is of use to you. Nick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message