On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:21:33 +0200, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am still trying to sort out some of the information on the OpenBSD website >about how to follow a specific branch and what are the benefits of each >method. > >I understood what STABLE, CURRENT and RELEASE are and how to follow them. > >I still have some difficulties figuring out what the difference between stable >and release+applied errata is: > >"Starting with 2.7, OpenBSD provides a source tree that contains important >patches and fixes (i.e. those from the errata plus others which are obvious >and simple, but do not deserve an errata entry) and makes it available via >CVS in addition to the current source." > >from http://www.openbsd.org/stable.html > >So having a release and applying patches to it is not exactly the same as >following the stable branch. How far are those methods apart? As for "how far" -that depends on the particular pair of -RELEASE/-STABLE version branches and how many little fixes the developers decide to include/back-port to -STABLE which aren't significant enough to deserve an errata entry. If you really want to find out "how far" then diff -RELEASE and -STABLE then compare the result to the errata patches. Below is an excellent quote from a well respected friend and list member who died in a motorcycle accident: On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:08:55 -0800, Chuck Yerkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >-RELEASE is the wading pool >-STABLE is the shallow end >-CURRENT is the deep end. The more you think about it, the more Chuck's analogy makes sense. Some stick to -RELEASE or -RELEASE+ERRATA for their production systems. Others like the "shallow end" and run -STABLE in production. Some of more talented people around here run -CURRENT in production. Take your pick. ;-) JCR -- Free, Open Source CAD, CAM and EDA Tools http://www.DesignTools.org
