On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right? > > > No. STABLE means STABLE API. > > > If you want stable code you run releases. Between releases > > stable can become unstable. Think of stable as permanent > > BETA code. Changes have passed the first level of testing > > in current which is permanent ALPHA code. > > No, this is what it means now. I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1, > and -STABLE used to mean exactly that. The developement branch was > -C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing. You were > not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off. This > change to the current structure wasn't meant to be permanent when it > was done (between 4 and 5, IIRC), and was only done out of necessity > because the changes across that major release were huge. > > FreeBSD needs an interim track that mirrors what -STABLE used to be, > which is a track between point releases that can be relied upon (and > RELEASE_x_y doesn't work, since it only addresses security and bugs > deemed worthy, which most aren't). >
YES [bar]. Until then I'm wedged into running -RELEASE (and occasionally praying to the computer gods. > -- > Jamie Bowden > -- > "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" > Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" > Iain Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public service Unix _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"