From lowell@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com Thu Apr 8 07:53:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: from heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com (ibn-host12.ironbridgenetworks.com [146.115.140.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE4515A06 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 07:53:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lowell@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com) Received: (from lowell@localhost) by heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id KAA37100; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:51:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lowell) Message-Id: <199904081451.KAA37100@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:51:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert Sender: lowell@heart-of-gold.ironbridgenetworks.com Reply-To: Lowell Gilbert To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: release vs stable vs current X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.2 >Number: 11028 >Category: docs >Synopsis: new text for FAQ to explain branches >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: nik >State: closed >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: change-request >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Thu Apr 8 08:00:01 PDT 1999 >Closed-Date: Sat May 29 06:02:27 PDT 1999 >Last-Modified: Sat May 29 06:02:51 PDT 1999 >Originator: Lowell Gilbert >Release: FreeBSD 3.1-STABLE i386 >Organization: myself >Environment: current FAQ. >Description: There's been a lot of newbie confusion about the terms "release" "stable" and "current" lately. Here's some new text for the FAQ to help eliminate this confusion. >How-To-Repeat: Read -questions? :-) >Fix: [This probably isn't an optimal description either, but it's an improvement. The real trick would be to make clear the distinction between a -stable release, like 3.1-R, and the -stable code tree; in particular, making this clear to someone who's never used a source code control system of any sort. A lot of confusion is caused by the common use on the mailing lists of references to "3.1-STABLE", which is (pedantically) really more like "3-STABLE".] *** preface.sgml Sat Mar 27 10:48:06 1999 --- preface.sgml.new Wed Apr 7 13:29:52 1999 *************** *** 95,100 **** --- 95,110 ----

Briefly explained, Releases are only made . While many people stay more up-to-date with the + FreeBSD sources (see the questions on and ) than that, doing so is more of a + commitment, as the sources are a moving target. What is FreeBSD-current? *************** *** 147,153 **** branches. ! What is the FreeBSD-stable concept?

Back when FreeBSD 2.0.5 was released, we decided to branch FreeBSD development into two parts. One branch was named ! What is the FreeBSD-stable concept?

Back when FreeBSD 2.0.5 was released, we decided to branch FreeBSD development into two parts. One branch was named ! When are FreeBSD releases made?

As a general principle, the FreeBSD core team only release a new version of FreeBSD when they believe that there are sufficient new --- 206,212 ---- with the first 4.0 releases appearing in Q1 2000. ! When are FreeBSD releases made?

As a general principle, the FreeBSD core team only release a new version of FreeBSD when they believe that there are sufficient new >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Lowell Gilbert Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/11028: release vs stable vs current Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:48:38 -0500 On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 10:51:49AM -0400, a little birdie told me that Lowell Gilbert remarked > > [This probably isn't an optimal description either, but it's an > improvement. The real trick would be to make clear the distinction > between a -stable release, like 3.1-R, and the -stable code tree; in > particular, making this clear to someone who's never used a source > code control system of any sort. A lot of confusion is caused by the > common use on the mailing lists of references to "3.1-STABLE", which > is (pedantically) really more like "3-STABLE".] Side note: I've always prefered that way; I still refer to the systems here as 2.2-STABLE, since they're along the -STABLE 2.2 branch. Naming them after the latest release along the branch always seemed rather counter-intuitive and strange to me. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I still prefer the branch designation. > *** preface.sgml Sat Mar 27 10:48:06 1999 > --- preface.sgml.new Wed Apr 7 13:29:52 1999 > *************** > *** 95,100 **** > --- 95,110 ---- >

Briefly explained, corporate user who wants stability and a low change count over > the wizzy new features of the latest + Releases can come from either "branch," but you should only use > + + relative instability (relative to nik Responsible-Changed-By: nik Responsible-Changed-When: Fri May 28 16:54:12 PDT 1999 Responsible-Changed-Why: Grabbed it. State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: nik State-Changed-When: Sat May 29 06:02:27 PDT 1999 State-Changed-Why: Committed, thanks. >Unformatted: