I think it's kinda sad that there is not a standartized way of versioning software, across the whole OSS community.
On 12/31/05, Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel A. wrote: > > On 12/30/05, Pavel Duda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>In short : > >>release - is something you want for your production system > >>stable - is something you can use too without much worry - it should be > >>"stable" right ? :-) > >>current - is for brave people who like to spend nights to figure out > >>what the hell is going on with their system and fight with all those > >>mysterious kernel panics.. > > > Isn't "stable" supposed to mean that it's "feature-stable", as in > > "We've discontinued implementing new features to this kernel, and are > > fixing bugs"? > > Not in FreeBSD it isn't. You want 'Release' for that. 'Stable' is a > development branch -- for code that has been well tested in the current > branch and which is therefore something that could go into a release > candidate. It's called 'Stable' for historical reasons and because systems > with that tag run stably -- which is a pretty damn impressive achievement > for a code branch that can see extensive modifications to whole subsystems > of the kernel. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard > Flat 3 > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate > Kent, CT11 9PW > > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
