ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!
kline at sage.thought.org
Thu Sep 14 16:07:09 PDT 2006
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org> 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).
YES [bar]. Until then I'm wedged into running -RELEASE
(and occasionally praying to the computer gods.
> 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 alaric.org.uk>
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
Gary Kline kline at thought.org www.thought.org Public service Unix
More information about the freebsd-stable