2011/10/15 George Kontostanos <gkontos.m...@gmail.com> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Pavel Timofeev <tim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's what most people think. > > > I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be > > longer. Six months, for example. > > New STABLE branch is very important! > > IMHO different OS releases (Unix or not) are usually at the state of > FreeBSD current regarding stability. FreeBSD late BETA and early RC > are usually very stable. Therefore the approximate one month period > between the first beta and the release is adequate time. > > Many users are reluctant to follow stable because they have to go > through the wolrd && kernel procedure. Since freebsd-update exists as > a means of binary upgrading a system through releases, I don't think > that it would be a bad idea to be able to use is for stable as well. > Let's assume that we would have monthly minor releases something like > 9.0.1, 9.0.2 etc. That could ease the fear of .0 release. > It's not bad idea.
> > This is coming from someone who is using current all the time for > workstations and stable for production servers and never uses > freebsd-update! > > Best Regards > > -- > George Kontostanos > aisecure.net > _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
