XDM and X

Paul Richards paul at freebsd-services.co.uk
Sun Aug 5 00:12:07 BST 2001


--On Saturday, August 04, 2001 15:00:52 +0100 Josef Karthauser
<joe at tao.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:42:44PM +0100, Nik Clayton wrote:
>> 
>> This hasn't suddenly changed in FreeBSD -- the -current/-stable branches
>> have worked like this since at least the 2.x days.  It's always been the
>> case that if you're using FreeBSD in a production environment you should
>> deploy any new version on to test machines first, and make sure that
>> it works in your environment.
>> 
> 
> I agree.  Over the years I've updated many production servers to
> -stable, and of course periodically things break, I remember having

I disagree that things haven't changed. When -stable first came into being
it was intended to only receive bug fixes, nothing that broke compatibility
across a major number was allowed and no significant development was
allowed.

That's no longer adhered to.

It was also intended to be the branch that production environments tracked
in order to pick up critical bug fixes, safe in the knowledge that -stable
would not break. We even said so in the handbook, and I think we might
still say that. It was not the case in the past that it was expected that
-stable had to be tested. If you tested the release, then the
recommendation was to track -stable after that to pick up critical bug
fixes.

That's no longer the case, hence I no longer recommend that production
enviroments track -stable, and as Neil has already pointed out, that's a
significant change of policy because that's not how things used to be and
was not how they were intended to be and is not how our user base expect
things to be.


Paul.







More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list