On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:05:27 -0500 Andrew Gould <andrewlylego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, RW<rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:41:12 -0500 > > Andrew Gould <andrewlylego...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> STABLE is what it sounds like. > > > > I don't think it is what it sounds like - STABLE branches are > > development branches with stable binary interfaces. It's the > > security branches that are intended for production use. > > > > From: > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/index.html > > "During the lifetime of each major release, an individual branch may > also be termed STABLE. This indicates that the FreeBSD Project > believes that the branch is of sufficiently proven quality to be used > by a wide range of users. Right, sufficiently proven quality to be used by a wide range of users for beta testing. I'm not saying that the stable branches shouldn't be used for production use, just that it's inadvisable to use them without a clear understanding of the reason why. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"