Lifetime of FreeBSD branches

Andy Fawcett andy at
Sat May 28 05:21:11 PDT 2005

On Friday 27 May 2005 23:22, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Scott Long wrote:
> > Yeah, and what I'm trying to do is smooth the bumps for the long
> > term. The 4.x->5.x transition was simply a gigantic mess for users,
> > and it was largely a function of it being 4+ years in the making.
> <rant>It still _is_ a gigantic mess.  My hosted 5.3-stable server
> just crapped itself for the second time this year, for no apparent
> reason.  I suggest  reestablishing 4.x as the "production" tree and
> continuing to maintain it for a while, including making releases, and
> regressing 5.x to what it is and probably will be for quite a while:
> "experimental".</rant>

And to counter your rant, I've been using 5.x since 5.0-DP1 on a range 
of hardware (mostly i386 in quite different setups, and more recently 
amd64 too) with virtually no problems.

On the other hand, 4.x (I think it was 4.9, but I really cannot remember 
for sure) crapped all over one box so hard I refuse to ever use it 


Andy Fawcett                                     | andy at
                                                 | tap at
"In an open world without walls and fences,      | tap at
  we wouldn't need Windows and Gates."  -- anon  | tap at

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list