26 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-stableRe: Further question Re: cvsupped to ...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Brian D. Woodruff | Apr 4, 2001 7:32 pm | |
| Chris Faulhaber | Apr 4, 2001 7:35 pm | |
| pirat | Apr 4, 2001 9:04 pm | |
| Brian D. Woodruff | Apr 4, 2001 9:49 pm | |
| Steve O'Hara-Smith | Apr 4, 2001 11:05 pm | |
| Bruce A. Mah | Apr 4, 2001 11:20 pm | |
| Ken Bolingbroke | Apr 4, 2001 11:38 pm | |
| Daniel O'Connor | Apr 4, 2001 11:45 pm | |
| Robert | Apr 5, 2001 12:46 am | |
| Deven Kampenhout | Apr 5, 2001 12:56 am | |
| Ben Smithurst | Apr 5, 2001 5:40 am | |
| Bob Johnson | Apr 5, 2001 6:40 am | |
| Steve Tremblett | Apr 5, 2001 6:47 am | |
| Stijn Hoop | Apr 5, 2001 6:56 am | |
| David Taylor | Apr 5, 2001 7:02 am | |
| Mike Harding | Apr 5, 2001 7:45 am | |
| Kris Kennaway | Apr 5, 2001 8:22 am | |
| Ken Bolingbroke | Apr 5, 2001 10:59 am | |
| Steve Tremblett | Apr 5, 2001 11:27 am | |
| Chris Faulhaber | Apr 5, 2001 11:32 am | |
| Nate Dannenberg | Apr 5, 2001 11:13 pm | |
| Kal Torak | Apr 5, 2001 11:37 pm | |
| Erik Trulsson | Apr 6, 2001 12:19 am | |
| Pete French | Apr 6, 2001 3:17 am | |
| Chad R. Larson | Apr 6, 2001 8:13 pm | |
| David O'Brien | Apr 7, 2001 10:59 pm |
| Subject: | Re: Further question Re: cvsupped to RELENG_4 but got 4.3-RC | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Ken Bolingbroke (free...@bolingbroke.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 5, 2001 10:59:03 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-stable | |
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Steve Tremblett wrote:
I was under the impression that 4-STABLE was primarily for bugfixes applied to the 4.2-RELEASE codebase, and 4-CURRENT is for development of new features. Given that rationale, 4.3-RC should be a preliminary merge of CURRENT code into STABLE. The intruduction of (relatively) unproven code into an established as-stable-as-possible codebase introduces instability until after it has been tested, therefore just because 4.3-RC == 4-STABLE, that does not imply that 4.3-RC == stable.
No, that's not how it works. It goes like this:
4.0-CURRENT -> 4.0-STABLE -> 4.1-RC -> 4.1-STABLE , etc
There is no 4-CURRENT now. -CURRENT is currently 5.0-CURRENT. At some further point in time, 5.0-CURRENT will become 5.0-STABLE. But you'll never have another -CURRENT merged into 4-STABLE.
And in the -STABLE branch, whatever the current name, the general idea is to introduce only small changes, bugfixes, security updates, and the like. So if you're following -STABLE at 4.2, you should be thinking of 4.2-STABLE as (4.2-RELEASE + bugfixes). And 4.3-RC would be (4.2-STABLE + more bugfixes). And 4.3-RELEASE will be (4.3-RC + yet more bugfixes).
One difference is that commits are locked down in the -RC stage, so there's less change, less chance of things breaking when the branch is in the -RC stage. People tend to think it's a "beta" in the way Microsoft or other vendors might do a beta of their OS, but that's not how it works here. Given this, I feel that -RC is a safer bet than any arbitrary -STABLE, given that -STABLE is constantly changing, with less review than it gets in -RC.
Ken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message