Yesterday's -STABLE kernel corrupts LAN

[Chris]

J.D. Bronson wrote:
> At 02:45 PM 11/26/2005, matt . wrote:
> 
>> Wow I must be missing something here on a very basic, fundamental level.
>>
>> I run FreeBSD-RELEASE on a production box.  I have my reservations but it
>> was the only release that supported my RAID controller, so I had no
>> choice
>> (or buy a $300 raid card that was supported).  Anyway it works fine so
>> far
>> (knock heavily and repeatedly on huge pieces of wood).
>>
>> I've read the FreeBSD notes regarding the differences between STABLE,
>> CURRENT and RELEASE.  So uh, what is supposed to be run on a production
>> box?  In plain sight on the FreeBSD site it says "Latest production
>> release"
>> which is 6.0-RELEASE...are we only supposed to run RELEASE on production
>> systems or are we supposed to run STABLE?  Seems to me it's
>> counter-intuitive to call something STABLE and not have it meant for
>> production.  My head hurts.
>>
>> matt
> 
> 
> I couldnt agree more with this comment. My head hurt after
> trying to figure this out as well..
> 
> Yea. The information seems to contradict itself.
> The only thing I have been able to 100% figure out is:
> 
> #*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6_0
> -> release branch/security fixes only
> Results in: 6.0-RELEASE
> 
> #*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_6
> -> 6.0 + changes will eventually be 6.1
> Results in: 6.0-STABLE
> 
> It is perhaps a bit easier in OpenBSD land. -STABLE means only bugfixes
> and important patches. In FreeBSD - this seems not the case?
> 
> -JD

STABLE is Not what you think. Its a work in progress. Towards the next
release. Not quite CURRENT, but not RELEASE.

RELEASE IS what you would think STABLE might be. The 6_0 tag follows all
security patches etc.

STABLE follows the work as it's being don within the banch. And what
will eventually be the next RELEASE

-- 
Best regards,
Chris

The first bug to hit a clean windshield lands directly
in front of your eyes.