Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newshost.convex.com!bcm.tmc.edu!pendragon!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-erlangen.de!news.tu-chemnitz.de!irz401!orion.sax.de!uriah.heep!news From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Can FreeBSD 2.1.1 support Cyrix 6x86??Etc... Date: 27 Jun 1996 20:26:17 GMT Organization: Private BSD site, Dresden Lines: 47 Message-ID: <4quqp9$9p@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <Dt5v2D.A6I@news2.new-york.net> <4qjgpi$4ds@uriah.heep.sax.de> <DtKMt8.AyC@news2.new-york.net> Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.heep.sax.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.6 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E le@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote: > Hmm,I thought 2.1 was supposed to be the bugfix release of 2.0.5? > (But 2.0.5 was a bugfix release of 2.0,no?) Hmm. Not quite exactly. 2.0R was something that could only be considered `beta', given the entirely new codebase after moving to 4.4BSD-Lite. 2.1 was _supposed_ to be the next release, but with the requirement that it had to get at least as stable as the famous 1.1.5.1 release. With the time passing, the wishlist for 2.1 was never ending, and in order to stop users from buying the (known to be rather buggy) 2.0 CDs, 2.0.5 has been prepared. By this time, the branch we now call "-stable" has been split off, and the head of the CVS tree was called 2.2-development. Only selected bugfixes went into the branch (causing the release engineers a huge amount of work), finally forming something that was good enough to call it 2.1R. Now that the branch has been there, it was decided to be a good idea continuing to move over bug fixes from the head into it, so -stable was continued. It's unlikely whether this experiment will be repeated, since we feel that we don't have the (personal) resources to maintain two largely diverging source branches. But now that we've done it, the final result will be published as 2.1.5. > Will there ever be a FreeBSD-really_stable? Depends from your point of view. :) As you know, there's no such thing like "100 % bug-free software". So, there's always one more bug... OTOH, i'm even running (selected) -current snapshots on production machines at work, and they behave fairly well. Of course, to do this, one should be rather familar with the actual development, and not doing any upgrade in times when there are major changes happening to the source tree. However, having the CVS tree mirrored everywhere around the world allows for a rather fine local source tree management, and with CPU speeds growing ever faster, recompiling major parts of the system is something one can do now while having a cup of tea... ;-) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)