On 26 February 2012 11:32, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdl...@ovitrap.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 26 February 2012 18:16:53 Chris Rees wrote: >> On 24 February 2012 01:35, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdl...@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. > Exactly :) Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
