ldrada at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 06:41:43 PST 2005
I think it's kinda sad that there is not a standartized way of
versioning software, across the whole OSS community.
On 12/31/05, Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> Daniel A. wrote:
> > On 12/30/05, Pavel Duda <element at email.cz> wrote:
> >>In short :
> >>release - is something you want for your production system
> >>stable - is something you can use too without much worry - it should be
> >>"stable" right ? :-)
> >>current - is for brave people who like to spend nights to figure out
> >>what the hell is going on with their system and fight with all those
> >>mysterious kernel panics..
> > Isn't "stable" supposed to mean that it's "feature-stable", as in
> > "We've discontinued implementing new features to this kernel, and are
> > fixing bugs"?
> Not in FreeBSD it isn't. You want 'Release' for that. 'Stable' is a
> development branch -- for code that has been well tested in the current
> branch and which is therefore something that could go into a release
> candidate. It's called 'Stable' for historical reasons and because systems
> with that tag run stably -- which is a pretty damn impressive achievement
> for a code branch that can see extensive modifications to whole subsystems
> of the kernel.
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> Kent, CT11 9PW
More information about the freebsd-questions