+--- 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.
People aren't concerned with the NAME, they are concerned about
updating production machines to what is supposedly the latest bugfixed
version, and getting a beta version instead. While the code in the new
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.
my $0.02 (Canadian)
--
Steve Tremblett
Cisco Systems
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
