Re: suggest renaming and extending the -CURRENT and -STABLE lines

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:57:51 +0300 Stefan Lambrev wrote:

> Anyway STABLE means stable API, so programs compiled on 6.2-RELEASE 
> should work on 6.2-STABLE

Sometimes I wish people would actually read a post before answering it. I
thought that was more of a German fault than an international one. :-)

I didn't need explaining what the -STABLE branch is or what it stands for.
But it doesn't make any difference anyway because I still believe the name
STABLE is picked badly. I novice user cannot possibly know what to expect
or what's behind that. The word "stable" implies that the system is
actually kept stable as a goal, not that a new driver or kernel mod could
actually break the system or prevent it from booting.

> You can look for "ARRRRGH!  Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR
> code?!" - very long thread, but normally when something broke in -stable
> this thread start and start again.

Your point? No insult intended, I just haven't got a clue what you are
trying to tell me (us).

> P.S. for me STABLE is very stable, and current CURRENT is even more 
> stable (at least on new hardware),
> and I have both in production.

The important words being "for me".

For one, if -CURRENT is as stable as you say, why bother with releases
anyway?

For seconds... :-)
I have had more than one day, where an update from one -STABLE to another
(both within one release) broke the system. I can distinctly remember an
ata(4) driving causing very interesting - but incorrect - data being
written to discs. It was bleeding-edge at the time. Ok, it was fixed
pretty quickly but that's not the issue. If that happens on a database
server in some firm, the boss will be slightly - ahem - "mad"...

Regards
Chris