Yesterday's -STABLE kernel corrupts LAN

[matt .]

FreeBSD should really consider changing the name of their branch name STABLE
to DEV or PRE-RELEASE, since it clearly states on freebsd.org the STABLE
branch is for those wishing to track and contribute to the development
process of the next FreeBSD RELEASE.  It makes sense to leave RELEASE the
way it is, since RELEASE branches are meant exactly for how their namesake
states.   FreeBSD-CURRENT pretty much self-explains what it's meant for,
which is the latest, bleeding edge code, which once tested is added to
STABLE...or wait, then maybe CURRENT should be called DEV?  aaaaahhh!!  :)

matt

On 11/26/05, J.D. Bronson <jbronson at wixb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>