> > >> (11.14.2002 @ 0019 PST): E.S. said, in 4.8K: << > > I've considered it, but isn't -STABLE a bit less stable than -RELEASE, > > since the source in it is newer? > > - -RELEASE is just a snapshot of -STABLE at a specific point in time. In > general, -STABLE is supposed to remain stable enough to be a -RELEASE at > nearly any given point in time. Theoretically. Sortof. > > I have *never* had -STABLE not boot up for me, or cause the massive > experimental problems that one might associate with -CURRENT. > > /Adam
Guess I will dip my oar in here and take this further off topic. It is something I wonder about a lot because we build a package of stuff based on FreeBSD and send it out to our user sites. I understand that when a '-RELEASE' is made, extra special care is taken to make sure EVERYTHING is up-to-date as far as it can go. This includes even the ports tree and hoping the ports supporters check their stuff. So, although I believe that changes in -STABLE are tested and seen as reliable and secure, I take -RELEASE to be more complete than -STABLE. How far off am I? ////jerry > > - -- > Adam Weinberger > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
