|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:||David Taylor (dav...@yadt.co.uk)|
|Date:||Apr 5, 2001 7:02:54 am|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001, Steve Tremblett wrote:
+--- Ben Smithurst wrote: | | Did you read the first sentence of that FAQ entry? "Short answer: it's | just a name." | | If you cvsup the RELENG_4 branch, you're getting FreeBSD-stable, whether | it be called -STABLE, -RC, -BETA, -FISHCAKE, -UNSTABLE-AS-HELL, or | even -CURRENT if someone felt like playing an April Fool's day joke in | /sys/conf/newvers.sh. :-) |
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.
You were under the wrong impression then.
4.0-CURRENT was around, and developed into something stable and working, and went through a 4.0-BETA.. 4.0-RC code-freeze, before becoming 4.0-RELEASE.
At that point, 4.0-STABLE was forked off, and the main branch was renamed 5.0-CURRENT, which started development of 5.0, which is still going on today..
Meanwhile, 4.0-STABLE had bugfixes and features MFCed (Merge from current) to it, and became 4.1-BETA, 4.1-RC, 4.1-RELEASE, through the appropriate code freeze stuff...
Then it became 4.1-STABLE, and so on, until now, when it's 4.2-STABLE, then was renamed 4.3-BETA, 4.3-RC, and will shortly be tagged as 4.3-RELEASE....
People aren't concerned with the NAME, they are concerned about
That's all it is. a name. if you cvsup to RELENG_4, you're getting the latest code from the 4.x-STABLE branch, be it a -STABLE, -BETA, -RC, or even a tagged -RELEASE.
updating production machines to what is supposedly the latest bugfixed version, and getting a beta version instead. While the code in the new
BETA > STABLE in terms of stability and quality (theoretically, anyway)
features may be of the highest quality and could possibly be bug free, if I'm running a frontline webserver I don't want to be the guy who discovers a bug in this new code. Then again, once I have a working config on that webserver, I shouldn't be updating all that often and only for specific fixes, but that is another can of worms.
I'd prefer to stay with 4-STABLE from the date of the codefreeze as opposed to 4.3-RC. I'll be waiting until 4.3-RELEASE before updating.
And here you contradict yourself.
"the date of the code freeze" -- after that point the code is frozen, so new features _can't_ be added. Only bug fixes are added.
It's entirely your choice when you want to upgrade, but 4.3-BETA is closer to -RELEASE stability than -STABLE from a few weeks before it...
-- David Taylor dav...@yadt.co.uk