Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
As I recall, Steve Tremblett wrote: > So a minor release happens when bugfixes reach a critical mass? Are > there any actual new features in 4.3 or simply fixes on top of > 4.2-RELEASE? Do features from -CURRENT get migrated in if they are > deemed stable enough to ship? The releases happen more or less on a calendar schedule, not by the amount of accumulated changes. There have been about 3 per year. This allows revenue stream from subscriptions, and a sense that progress is being made. And, yes, features do migrate from -CURRENT if deemed safe enough and if there is enough demand. You'll see the phrase MFC on some changes to the -STABLE branch; that stands for "Merged From Current". -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
+--- Ben Smithurst wrote: | | Did you read the first sentence of that FAQ entry? "Short answer: it's | just a name." | | If you cvsup the RELENG_4 branch, you're getting FreeBSD-stable, whether | it be called -STABLE, -RC, -BETA, -FISHCAKE, -UNSTABLE-AS-HELL, or | even -CURRENT if someone felt like playing an April Fool's day joke in | /sys/conf/newvers.sh. :-) | I was under the impression that 4-STABLE was primarily for bugfixes applied to the 4.2-RELEASE codebase, and 4-CURRENT is for development of new features. Given that rationale, 4.3-RC should be a preliminary merge of CURRENT code into STABLE. The intruduction of (relatively) unproven code into an established as-stable-as-possible codebase introduces instability until after it has been tested, therefore just because 4.3-RC == 4-STABLE, that does not imply that 4.3-RC == stable. People aren't concerned with the NAME, they are concerned about updating production machines to what is supposedly the latest bugfixed version, and getting a beta version instead. While the code in the new features may be of the highest quality and could possibly be bug free, if I'm running a frontline webserver I don't want to be the guy who discovers a bug in this new code. Then again, once I have a working config on that webserver, I shouldn't be updating all that often and only for specific fixes, but that is another can of worms. I'd prefer to stay with 4-STABLE from the date of the codefreeze as opposed to 4.3-RC. I'll be waiting until 4.3-RELEASE before updating. my $0.02 (Canadian) -- Steve Tremblett Cisco Systems To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
> > Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:49:40 -0500 > From: "Brian D. Woodruff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC > > At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > > > Here are my questions: > > > > > > 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I have been using? > > excellent answer to part 2 > > can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want? If you want to have identical code on all of your systems, you need to specify your update by date rather than "the latest -STABLE" (which is what the tag you are using does). Unfortunately, I don't know the details of how to do that, so I can't help with that part. To restate that, the cvsup tag you are using always fetches the latest 4.x code, whatever that may be. Unless you cvsup all of your systems at the same time, they will likely end up with different code, because -STABLE is continuously updated. The 4.3-RC you fetched is, by the way, exactly the same thing as the latest 4.2-STABLE. There is no difference. It is NOT a snapshot of -CURRENT. Good luck. - Bob > > I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one > release past the others. > > Valid thinking or not, I would like to know how to do this with cvsup, if > possible. > > Thanks! > > BDW > > > > 2.) is this a mistake? If so, when will it be corrected? > > > > > > >http://www.FreeBSD.org/FAQ/book.html#RELEASE-CANDIDATE > > > >-- > >Chris D. Faulhaber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >FreeBSD: The Power To Serve - http://www.FreeBSD.org > -- * Bob JohnsonSenior Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]College of Engineering 523 Weil Hall 352-392-9217 OfficeUniversity of Florida 352-392-7063 Fax Gainesville, FL 32611 * "Security is not a product, it's a mentality." . . To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: >>> Here are my questions: >>> >>> 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I have been using? > > excellent answer to part 2 > > can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want? Did you read the first sentence of that FAQ entry? "Short answer: it's just a name." If you cvsup the RELENG_4 branch, you're getting FreeBSD-stable, whether it be called -STABLE, -RC, -BETA, -FISHCAKE, -UNSTABLE-AS-HELL, or even -CURRENT if someone felt like playing an April Fool's day joke in /sys/conf/newvers.sh. :-) > I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one > release past the others. Well if it said 4.2-STABLE and you builtworld on one and not the others you still wouldn't be consistent, they'd still be different codebases but with the same name. If it _really_ bothers you just change /sys/conf/newvers.sh appropriately so your kernel reports itself as 4.2-STABLE, if all you want is the same name but different codebases. -- Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0x99392F7D To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
I agree with you completely, Bob. The idea of keeping one "master server" to push out updates to many is extremely useful when you are maintaining a large number of similar systems. It is much less work-intensive to maintain several hundred systems if they are running on exactly the same configuration, kernel, etc. The only caveat is that you must be extremely careful with any changes you make to the master, and make certain that any changes that you make to your master system are pushed out to all of the "leaf" systems. If not, then you get some updates here and there on various systems and you may as well be running different software on all of the machines. CVS is definately the way to go, as it helps you to be disciplined about distribution. Just make sure that the master server that is cvsuping is thoroughly tested before you push things out, or you're heading for trouble very quickly :) Robert wrote: > There may be some value in the multiple servers case, of running one as a > cvs server, and updating all the others off that one. Then all your servers > are reflections of the one that is cvsupping the -> remote-cvs-server > > just a thought. > > Bob > >> >> >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: >> >>> At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > Here are my questions: > > 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I >> have been using? >> >>> can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want? >>> >>> I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one >>> release past the others. >> >> If you're using CVS to get RELENG_4 at different points in time, even if >> they're all 4.2-STABLE, your servers will NOT be consistent anyway. The >> -STABLE branch is a stream, in constant development. If you update your >> sources via CVS to build one server, then the next day update sources >> again to build another server, the two servers will be different. This is >> the essence of -STABLE, even though it seems to contradict the meaning of >> the word "stable". :-) >> >> If you require absolute consistency across servers, you need to either >> update all servers from the very same source, or specify an exact CVS tag >> to get the same sources for all servers. >> >> And if it doesn't bother you that your servers are on different points of >> 4.2-STABLE, then 4.3-RC is just another point a little farther down the >> development stream. I'd actually consider the -RC to be safer bet than >> the average -STABLE. >> >> Ken >> >> >> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message >> > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
RE: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
There may be some value in the multiple servers case, of running one as a cvs server, and updating all the others off that one. Then all your servers are reflections of the one that is cvsupping the -> remote-cvs-server just a thought. Bob > > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > > > At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > > > > Here are my questions: > > > > > > > > 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I > have been using? > > > > can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want? > > > > I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one > > release past the others. > > If you're using CVS to get RELENG_4 at different points in time, even if > they're all 4.2-STABLE, your servers will NOT be consistent anyway. The > -STABLE branch is a stream, in constant development. If you update your > sources via CVS to build one server, then the next day update sources > again to build another server, the two servers will be different. This is > the essence of -STABLE, even though it seems to contradict the meaning of > the word "stable". :-) > > If you require absolute consistency across servers, you need to either > update all servers from the very same source, or specify an exact CVS tag > to get the same sources for all servers. > > And if it doesn't bother you that your servers are on different points of > 4.2-STABLE, then 4.3-RC is just another point a little farther down the > development stream. I'd actually consider the -RC to be safer bet than > the average -STABLE. > > Ken > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
On 05-Apr-2001 Ken Bolingbroke wrote: > If you require absolute consistency across servers, you need to either > update all servers from the very same source, or specify an exact CVS tag > to get the same sources for all servers. You can check out a branch at a specific time using -D which you might find useful.. Also, you could check it out and build it on one machine and then do an installworld via NFS (assuming all the machines are on a fast link and running the same architecture) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote: > > > Here are my questions: > > > > > > 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I have been using? > > can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want? > > I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one > release past the others. If you're using CVS to get RELENG_4 at different points in time, even if they're all 4.2-STABLE, your servers will NOT be consistent anyway. The -STABLE branch is a stream, in constant development. If you update your sources via CVS to build one server, then the next day update sources again to build another server, the two servers will be different. This is the essence of -STABLE, even though it seems to contradict the meaning of the word "stable". :-) If you require absolute consistency across servers, you need to either update all servers from the very same source, or specify an exact CVS tag to get the same sources for all servers. And if it doesn't bother you that your servers are on different points of 4.2-STABLE, then 4.3-RC is just another point a little farther down the development stream. I'd actually consider the -RC to be safer bet than the average -STABLE. Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
If memory serves me right, "Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote: > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:49:40 -0500 > "Brian D. Woodruff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > BW> I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one > BW> release past the others. > > Allow me to investigate this a little further. > > Do you want to have all your servers running the same code or code > with the same name ? The former can only be achieved by installing them from > the same build (except for RELEASEs which can be exactly recreated at any > time). "man cvsup" and look at the description of the "date" tag in the supfile. Bruce. PGP signature
Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:49:40 -0500 "Brian D. Woodruff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: BW> I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one BW> release past the others. Allow me to investigate this a little further. Do you want to have all your servers running the same code or code with the same name ? The former can only be achieved by installing them from the same build (except for RELEASEs which can be exactly recreated at any time). The latter is meaningless except for RELEASEs (oh yes and branch points but AFAIK nobody uses those tags for a checkout). -- Optimal hardware acceleration for Windows PC (Mac). 9.98 m/s/s applied for (at least) 2s followed by impact with solid object. Optimal software upgrade FreeBSD (OS-X). To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
