Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:36:50 -0700 From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Carstea Catalin <carstea.catalin@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stable server Message-ID: <4t1x4twltp.x4t@mail.opusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <dc6701ba05081611464458cf4a@mail.gmail.com> (Carstea Catalin's message of "Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:46:37 -0700") References: <dc6701ba05081611464458cf4a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Carstea Catalin <carstea.catalin@gmail.com> writes: > what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? The Handbook recommends against using a stable branch (RELENG_5 or RELENG_4, which might not even compile) without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment. But if one is going to thoroughly test the code, one might as will use HEAD, except that it is likely to fail and be a waste of time (or your testing is not thorough enough). So it seems to me that one's choice is between thorough testing of RELENG_5 or less thorough testing of RELENG_5_4 or RELENG_4_11. I'll leave it to those with more experience for choosing between the last two, but it sounds like it's a toss-up, with some recommendations being influenced by conservatism or a desire for more "5" testers. :) Another factor (besides testing effort) in the choice between RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_4 is the number of fixes as measured by the time since RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4t1x4twltp.x4t>