Re: Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 14:11, Scott Schappell wrote: > The way I understand it is there are three "branches" > > CURRENT - the cutting edge source, use at your own risk, etc (5.x). This > is a branch that is in development. > STABLE - this is the development branch for a current dot release. For > example 4.9 right now is in the STABLE branch and has gone through a > certain level of testing in CURRENT. 4.9 right now is PRERELEASE, but > it's still considered STABLE. Since it's still a dvelopment branch, it's > prone to bugs (but not as many as CURRENT) as used primarily for > contributors to the project or folks who want to stay as absolutely > current in their current RELENG version (4). > RELEASE - this is a branch that is the most stable, it's only updated to > fix security or system issues. >From what I can tell, this is mostly correct. Release engineering seems to be a little tricky. If I read the docs right, it's better to keep in mind that there are only two main development branches, -CURRENT and -STABLE. -RELEASE is just a snapshot of either branch at appropriate intervals (the docs say approximately every 4 months). The purpose of a -RELEASE is to stabilize the code bases enough so that a release of the branch can be made for bumping up the version number and sending it out on a CD. As of this writing, the two latest -RELEASEs are 4.8-RELEASE and 5.1-RELEASE for -STABLE and -CURRENT respectively. HEAD is the active CVS development branch where all the brand-new code goes and winds up as the next -CURRENT release. In this case, 5.2-RELEASE. You don't ever want to track HEAD unless you're developing, insanely curious, or just insane. This is how it's all laid out in my mind, yours may differ. :P (If it does, let me know!) FreeBSD release engineering is quite complex but when I try to wrap my head around it, it seems to make some sense from a development point of view. > If you're tagging *default tag release=. (that's a literal . not a > punctuation mark) then you're tracking CURRENT (5.x) > If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4 you're tracking 4.x STABLE > If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4_8 you're tracking 4.8 > RELEASE (security branch) - this is what I'm following in my cvsupfile. > > Again, this is how I see it after reading the handbook, and I may be a > bit off the mark :). I got my information (or inferred it) from the Release Engineering page: http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html I think the docs there might explain the release process a little better than the handbook (but will obviously be more technical.) C. Ulrich -- http://bityard.net ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:11:05AM -0700, Scott Schappell wrote: > Doug Poland wrote: > > >I guess I have some confusion between what's -STABLE and -RELEASE and > >when one becomes the other. Better read up on it. > > > > > The way I understand it is there are three "branches" > > CURRENT - the cutting edge source, use at your own risk, etc (5.x). This > is a branch that is in development. > STABLE - this is the development branch for a current dot release. For > example 4.9 right now is in the STABLE branch and has gone through a > certain level of testing in CURRENT. 4.9 right now is PRERELEASE, but > it's still considered STABLE. Since it's still a dvelopment branch, it's > prone to bugs (but not as many as CURRENT) as used primarily for > contributors to the project or folks who want to stay as absolutely > current in their current RELENG version (4). > RELEASE - this is a branch that is the most stable, it's only updated to > fix security or system issues. > That's a good explaination > If you're tagging *default tag release=. (that's a literal . not a > punctuation mark) then you're tracking CURRENT (5.x) > If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4 you're tracking 4.x STABLE > If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4_8 you're tracking 4.8 > RELEASE (security branch) - this is what I'm following in my cvsupfile. > Ah, makes more sense when you show it this way. > Again, this is how I see it after reading the handbook, and I may be a > bit off the mark :). > Thanks again. -- Regards, Doug ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
Doug Poland wrote: I guess I have some confusion between what's -STABLE and -RELEASE and when one becomes the other. Better read up on it. The way I understand it is there are three "branches" CURRENT - the cutting edge source, use at your own risk, etc (5.x). This is a branch that is in development. STABLE - this is the development branch for a current dot release. For example 4.9 right now is in the STABLE branch and has gone through a certain level of testing in CURRENT. 4.9 right now is PRERELEASE, but it's still considered STABLE. Since it's still a dvelopment branch, it's prone to bugs (but not as many as CURRENT) as used primarily for contributors to the project or folks who want to stay as absolutely current in their current RELENG version (4). RELEASE - this is a branch that is the most stable, it's only updated to fix security or system issues. If you're tagging *default tag release=. (that's a literal . not a punctuation mark) then you're tracking CURRENT (5.x) If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4 you're tracking 4.x STABLE If you're tagging *default tag release=RELENG_4_8 you're tracking 4.8 RELEASE (security branch) - this is what I'm following in my cvsupfile. Again, this is how I see it after reading the handbook, and I may be a bit off the mark :). Cheers ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:23:50AM -0700, Scott Schappell wrote: > > > >Can I start with 4.9-BETA ISOs? My thinking is that what's in > >4.9-BETA will not be much different from -STABLE. > > > depends on what you want. If you want stability, install the 4.8 ISO and > CVS to 4.9 when it's RELEASEd, if you want to help bug hunt, grab BETA. > I guess I have some confusion between what's -STABLE and -RELEASE and when one becomes the other. Better read up on it. > >What do others when building servers and we're on the cusp of a new > >-RELEASE? > > > Speaking for myself, since I have people hosting on my server and what > not, I'm sticking with 4.8 until it's passed EOL and patch as necessary > then evaluate if the latest RELEASE offers any substantial improvements, > if so, then I'll CVSup to the next RELEASE in the same branch I'm in > (4.8 > 4.9). > That's usually how I do it too. > Hope my opinion helped :) > Yes, it did, thank you. -- Regards, Doug ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
Doug Poland wrote: Hi, On Monday, 29 Sep, I'll be building an apache/mysql server. I usually install from the latest release on CD then cvsup to -STABLE. My questions: Can I start with 4.9-BETA ISOs? My thinking is that what's in 4.9-BETA will not be much different from -STABLE. What do others when building servers and we're on the cusp of a new -RELEASE? Speaking for myself, since I have people hosting on my server and what not, I'm sticking with 4.8 until it's passed EOL and patch as necessary then evaluate if the latest RELEASE offers any substantial improvements, if so, then I'll CVSup to the next RELEASE in the same branch I'm in (4.8 > 4.9). The BETA is just that, and following -stable has revealed that while it's getting close to RELEASE, there's still some bugs. It's depends on what you want. If you want stability, install the 4.8 ISO and CVS to 4.9 when it's RELEASEd, if you want to help bug hunt, grab BETA. I always build with the latest RELEASE as I put stability ahead of being on the bleeding edge. Hope my opinion helped :) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Seeking advice for new server: 4.8-REL vs. 4.9-BETA
Hi, On Monday, 29 Sep, I'll be building an apache/mysql server. I usually install from the latest release on CD then cvsup to -STABLE. My questions: Can I start with 4.9-BETA ISOs? My thinking is that what's in 4.9-BETA will not be much different from -STABLE. What do others when building servers and we're on the cusp of a new -RELEASE? -- Regards, Doug ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
