ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

Jamie Bowden ragnar at
Thu Sep 14 08:44:14 PDT 2006

On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at> wrote:

> > Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?

>         No. STABLE means STABLE API.

>         If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
>         stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
>         BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
>         in current which is permanent ALPHA code.

No, this is what it means now.  I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1,
and -STABLE used to mean exactly that.  The developement branch was
-C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing.  You were
not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off.  This
change to the current structure wasn't meant to be permanent when it
was done (between 4 and 5, IIRC), and was only done out of necessity
because the changes across that major release were huge.

FreeBSD needs an interim track that mirrors what -STABLE used to be,
which is a track between point releases that can be relied upon (and
RELEASE_x_y doesn't work, since it only addresses security and bugs
deemed worthy, which most aren't).

Jamie Bowden
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <alaric at>

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list