I would say that -STABLE is just the next mini-RELEASE and is a matter
of naming scheme. The -CURRENT is.. well, the danger one, it might be
*realy* unstable sometimes. But I think this discussion is enough old.

I'd suggest searching mailing lists archives for more info about this
subject.

Regards,

---
Plamen D. Petkov, ICQ# 2214327
plamendpbgstore.com
http://www.bgstore.com
> As opposed to -CURRENT, yes.  However,
> the committers want everyone to realize that
> once in a while you might build -STABLE with
> something broken (albeit rare, as in the coincidence
> of the "blue moon" and "hen's teeth" together...)
> but it still could happen.  -RELEASE is a -STABLE
> that gets frozen for a while to see if any problems
> pop up, or if it can be crowed about and burned
> to CD with confidence (I hope the RELENG team
> doesn't think I'm minimizing their hard work here.)
>
> Some people read the warning about -STABLE in
> the Handbook (that I quoted earlier) and decide only
> to run -RELEASE and patch security fixes, and
> there is a cvs tag for this, called RELENG_4_x.
> This is where a little confusion comes in, because
> after a while they quit patching the older releases.
> The official line is that it's the current release (4.6)
> and the last (4.5) that are being patched, so if
> you're still running 4.4-R, (for example) you're no
> longer sure you can cvsup with RELENG_4_4
> and get any new patches.
>
> As I said, -STABLE's running fine for me
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomoFreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]