On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Tortise@Paradise wrote:
> Hi
> I've been trying to sort out which update to download. I seek a stable
> version of FreeBSD. Am I correct that of the Current and Stable paths there
> are releases for each? ie that there are "Current Releases" and "Stable
> Releases"? I
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 06:20:18PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2001, at 22:51, Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> > Done.
>
> Did I miss the commit? When was this done?
21:50 last night, to src/share/examples/cvsup/standard-supfile, on the
RELENG_4 branch. ID 1.17.2.2.
N
--
FreeBSD: The Powe
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 09:48:57PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> jonathan michaels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:45:41PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Maybe it would reduce confusion somewhat if people would
> > > just stop saying ``4.1-stable'' etc. Those simpl
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Fromme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 April 2001 15:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Releases
> > > I would also vote for ``uname -r'' saying ``4-STABLE'' and
> > &g
> Maybe it would reduce confusion somewhat if people would
> just stop saying ``4.1-stable'' etc. Those simply do not
> exist.
Best idea so far, and consequently change the bit in the handbook that
implies that -STABLE is a bug fix to the last release, independent of
the changes to making the ne
jonathan michaels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:45:41PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Maybe it would reduce confusion somewhat if people would
> > just stop saying ``4.1-stable'' etc. Those simply do not
> > exist.
> >
> > I would also vote for ``uname -r'' sayi
oliver,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 03:45:41PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Dan Langille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10 Apr 2001, at 14:48, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:32:15AM +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> > > > AFAIK, the thread to date has been about whether or no
:: Seems to me that if the lowest-common-denominator had some way to
:: stay stable that didn't involve using cvsup or a compiler, this would
:: be a non-issue.
::
:: Numbered binary patches, anyone?
Troll!
;-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 01:38:15PM -0400, Michael R. Rudel wrote:
> x.x-BETA is ... notoriously buggy. It has bugs, that's the point of the
x.y-GAMMA rather than x.y-BETA might would be a good move. Then we'd
have 1/2 the world asking what "GAMMA" means. We could then hit over the
head them wit
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 05:55:13PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Jordan Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> > > Just because the problem is difficult to solve does not mean it can not be
> > > or should not be solved.
> > Fine, how about you solve it and the rest of us will get back to all
> > the o
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:29:43AM +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christopher Schulte wrote:
> > At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> > >Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar
> > >with.
> >
> > -CURRENT fits all those requirements
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 03:54:32PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
> Next, the case of the bind and ntpd updates. Yes, these were fixed
> in -STABLE and -CURRENT very quickly, but were only documented in UPDATING.
> How many people who are running -RELEASE have this? That's right, none. If
> the
At 08:18 PM 4/9/01 -0700, Yann Sommer wrote:
>Heya all,
>
>I've been following this thread with some extra attention, since I remember
>beeing new to FreeBSD and complaining about a dedicated Server I ordered,
>running BETA. It is just, as has been mentioned a few times before on this
>list, again
At 10:04 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>I like the idea of stable-supfile, so it should stay. standard-supfile
>should *definitely* refer to the -REL in which it is a part of. In that
>case, a novice user who doesn't change anything would end up cvsup'ing code
>that they already have
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Michael R. Rudel wrote:
> [... SNIP ...]
>
> Personally, I don't see a problem with the -CURRENT and -STABLE naming
> scheme. As someone said, anybody who can CVSup (not to mention get the
> sample CVSup files to work off of) yet not read the rest of the
> documentation has ot
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:26:50AM -0500, Christopher Schulte wrote:
>
> Change the designation just because some admins don't know how to RTFM? I
> don't think so... They fu*ked up. Plain and simple. -CURRENT makes sense,
> and more importantly is documented for those who take the time to l
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christopher Schulte wrote:
> At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> >Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar
> >with.
>
> -CURRENT fits all those requirements.
In this case, the familiarity is reduced to those familiar with the
pr
> By this designation, we could call a brake a clutch and get away with it
> because it's all documented. The problem is not with the documentation.
> It's with the name.
That's a nice pat answer, but the problem is that for every value of
"name" we propose, somebody comes forward and says "But
[... SNIP ...]
Personally, I don't see a problem with the -CURRENT and -STABLE naming
scheme. As someone said, anybody who can CVSup (not to mention get the
sample CVSup files to work off of) yet not read the rest of the
documentation has other issues. Renaming -CURRENT to -DEV or -DEVEL would
be
At 03:45 AM 4/10/2001 +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
>Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar
>with.
-CURRENT fits all those requirements.
> > I'm not as hot about the BETA designation, but generally feel it should
> > be left alone simply because it's documented,
20 matches
Mail list logo
