I decided to take the plunge and perform my very first upgrade, from 4.7 to (I thought) 4.9, by CVSuping RELENG_4 and "make buildworld" etc. Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead... Is this release considered stable? It isn't even mentioned on the FreeBSD page. Or did I stuff up, and should have used RELENG_4_9_X instead? Are there any, umm, release notes for 4.10-BETA, so I can see what I'm in for? -- Dave
> Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead... > > Is this release considered stable? It isn't even mentioned on the FreeBSD > page. Or did I stuff up, and should have used RELENG_4_9_X instead?Yes, 4.10-BETA == 4-STABLE.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 07:58:32PM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:> I decided to take the plunge and perform my very first upgrade, from 4.7 > to (I thought) 4.9, by CVSuping RELENG_4 and "make buildworld" etc. > > Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead... > > Is this release considered stable? It isn't even mentioned on the FreeBSD > page. Or did I stuff up, and should have used RELENG_4_9_X instead?At the moment, 4.10-BETA == STABLE. Within the the week, this will change to 4.10-RC1, then maybe 4.10-RC2 and finally 4.10-STABLE.> Are there any, umm, release notes for 4.10-BETA, so I can see what I'm > in for?They're in src/release, but you do have STABLE. The "BETA" in 4.10-BETA means that we're considering this code for release as 4.10-RELEASE, and that's all. Ceri -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20040422/be52d3a7/attachment.bin
On Thursday 22 April 2004 11:58, Dave Horsfall wrote:> I decided to take the plunge and perform my very first upgrade, from 4.7 > to (I thought) 4.9, by CVSuping RELENG_4 and "make buildworld" etc. > > Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead... > > Is this release considered stable? It isn't even mentioned on the FreeBSD > page. Or did I stuff up, and should have used RELENG_4_9_X instead? >if u use RELENG_4_10, cvsup, do a buildworld/installworld by the (hand)book, you will get 4.10-RC.> Are there any, umm, release notes for 4.10-BETA, so I can see what I'm > in for? > > -- Dave > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"Stefan
In message: <Pine.BSI.4.58.0404221649040.8333@dave.horsfall.org>
Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> writes:
: Well, imagine my dismay when I was greeted with 4.10-BETA instead...
It appears that re changed the way they are tagging releases again.
The last time we had 4.x-BETA was 4.2. A review of the cvs log for
the newvers.sh file shows that 5.1 and 5.2 had a BETA release, but all
other 4.x releases since 4.3 went through the sequence
4.x-STABLE -> 4.x+1-PRERELEASE -> 4.x+1-RC -> 4.x+1-STABLE
You'll have to ask re@ why this wasn't done this time.
Warner