On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:52:49 +0200 (CEST)
"A. L. Meyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AM> A comparison:
AM> Debian GNU/Linux has 3 trees: 1. stable 2. testing 3. unstable
RELENG_4_3, RELENG_4, 'Top of Tree' (in CVS terms)
security, stable, current (in release name terms)
AM> The FreeBSD "stable" appears more comparable a mix of "stable"
AM> and "testing". Debian GNU/Linux only release a major "stable"
AM> update once yearly, a shorter interval being considered bug
AM> churning.
Hmm FreeBSD runs a *RELEASE* three times a year, what would be
the point of a branch that moves *slower* than releases ?
AM> ensure that "stable" means what it says. Do you seriously expect
AM> all users to go thru the testing procedures enumerated below?
I expect it in commercial environments (Solaris installs get treated
this way where I work for example). I don't treat my home systems this way and
I accept the risk.
AM> Most probably expect such things to be done by developers before
AM> new and/or improved code is incorporated into "stable".
This an unreasonable expectation, commercial vendors cannot achieve
this (note they *never* give access to any development stream, employ testers
and still ship bugs) why should open source projects be able to do so much
better. (actually they do the -stable tree is at least as good as the 'track
the patches' game on any commercial OS).
--
Directable Mirrors - A Better Way To Focus The Sun
http://www.best.com/~sohara
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
