FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports
crees at freebsd.org
Sun Feb 26 12:05:12 UTC 2012
On 26 February 2012 11:32, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist at ovitrap.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 February 2012 18:16:53 Chris Rees wrote:
>> On 24 February 2012 01:35, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist at ovitrap.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday 24 February 2012 01:25:01 Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>> >> This is NOT a troll.
>> >> This is NOT a flame.
>> >> Do NOT hijack this thread to troll/flame.
>> > allow them some fun too.
>> >> Now, I find the number of problem reports regarding 9.0-RELEASE alarming
>> >> and I'm growing more and more fearful towards it.
>> >> In the current state of things, I have *absolutely* no wish to run it in
>> >> production :(
>> > Did you read deeply into the strategy behind the releases? If I remember right, the odd numbers are a little bit more experimental compared to the even numbers. For myself, I try to stick with even numbers whenever possible. If I install FreeBSD on a serious machine, I never use x.0. It must be at least x.1.
>> There's no such odd/even number policy with FreeBSD-- I think you're
>> thinking of another OS ;)
> maybe something got stuck in my head with the move from 4 to 5.
4 to 5 was SMP-related, and when the Project decided to move to
time-based rather than feature-based releases -- pure coincidence that
5 was odd.
> How easy was the move to 6 then?
_Just_ before my time I'm afraid ;)
> Independent of this, it is still true that there is always the older branch available when a new one opens at .0.
>> You're right that x.0 is slightly more experimental in general though
>> (by its nature, it must be).
> And has nothing to do with FreeBSD as such.
More information about the freebsd-stable