Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:11:44 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> To: fullermd@futuresouth.com Cc: FreeBSD-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current Message-ID: <199904091311.AA24204@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: <19990408174838.C11572@futuresouth.com> (fullermd@futuresouth.com) References: <199904081451.KAA37100@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com> <19990408174838.C11572@futuresouth.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<moved to freebsd-doc directly>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:48:38 -0500
From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com>
Side note: I've always prefered that way; I still refer to the systems
here as 2.2-STABLE, since they're along the -STABLE 2.2 branch. Naming
them after the latest release along the branch always seemed rather
counter-intuitive and strange to me. I understand the reasoning behind
it, but I still prefer the branch designation.
If everybody did that, there wouldn't be any confusion. In practice,
I'm not sure it really helps, particularly for newcomers. The current
wording in that section tries to finesse the question completely. I
think that's the right thing, and I tried to follow suit while still
reducing the confusion that produced a couple of questions from new
users within the last week.
> *** preface.sgml Sat Mar 27 10:48:06 1999
> --- preface.sgml.new Wed Apr 7 13:29:52 1999
> ***************
> *** 95,100 ****
> --- 95,110 ----
> <p>Briefly explained, <em/-stable/ is aimed at the ISP or other
> corporate user who wants stability and a low change count over
> the wizzy new features of the latest <em/-current/ snapshot.
> + Releases can come from either "branch," but you should only use
> + <em/-current/ if you're sure that you're prepared for its
> + relative instability (relative to <em/-stable/, that is).
I dislike the term 'instability' here. Perhaps something more along
the lines of 'increased volatility'...?
There are two different senses of stability being implied by that
terminology. There's operational stability, in terms of how often
something may crash, and there's functional stability, in terms of how
often the software itself changes. Again, the current language
finessed the distinction, I approved, and I tried to follow suit.
You're referring to the second, which *is* a more useful thing to
measure, but I don't think explaining the distinction will make things
clearer for non-experts (because it's not really relevant to answering
the question in that section).
Be well.
Lowell
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?199904091311.AA24204>