Yesterday's -STABLE kernel corrupts LAN

[J.D. Bronson]

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