On 26.03.2006, at 04:00, Dragronfly Kernel List User wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you might want to insert $realname here, or at least spell "DragonFly" correctly...
Not trying to argue with you, but simply trying to discern the differences between the release cycles of DF and FBSD, it seems to me that DF's RELEASE release cycle is a mixture of FBSD's Release and Stable with some native features.
DF's patches are committed without thorough testing (like FBSD Stable) and RELEASE sub-versions are bumped up without code freezes, release candidates or betas (native to DF).
How can you state that patches are commited without thorough testing? First of all you don't know how much testing the developers actually do before committing the patch. And secondly, patches which go to -release are security and bug fixes ONLY. We don't add features to -release like freebsd does on -stable. You really need to read documentation before making such claims.
When DF full RELEASE versions are bumped up (I think) there are code freezes (like FBSD Release).
You are wrong again. It is a feature freeze, no code freeze.
If this is in fact the way DF RELEASE releases come out, I fail to seewhy a 1.6.2 would be "safer" than the official 1.6.0 (or for that matter1.4.3 vs. 1.40).
It is not, in fact.
I'm simply trying to plan for the best release to install on the production server.
Always the latest release. -- Serve - BSD +++ RENT this banner advert +++ ASCII Ribbon /"\ Work - Mac +++ space for low €€€ NOW!1 +++ Campaign \ / Party Enjoy Relax | http://dragonflybsd.org Against HTML \ Dude 2c 2 the max ! http://golden-apple.biz Mail + News / \
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
