Re: console

[Erik Wikström <Erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2008-07-27 20:08, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:54:00AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:

>> :Uh, I forgot - another one: I read, that DragonFlyBSD has two releases
>> :yearly. Wouldn't be reasonable to switch to "rolling release" model then? It
>> :could mean less work for both the users ant the devs... what do you think?
>> 
>>     I don't know what you mean by a 'rolling release' model.
> 
> I mean the thing described at, for example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_release
> http://jon-reagan.blogspot.com/2008/01/linux-releases-fixed-vs-rolling-release.html
> 
>>     People can
>>     always stay up to date by tracking the release branch or the development
>>     branch, which are updated continuously.
> 
> So, does it work in the case of DF exactly the way:
> 
> #v+
>   "[..] there are no fixed releases like 0.7 or 1.0, but the whole system is
>   on the roll, constantly updating bit by bit (not the 'bit' as in bits and
>   bytes, but a 'bit' as in a bit of this and a bit of that). The flow of
>   updated packages is constant [..]"
> #v-
> ( http://eyedeal.team88.org/node/58 )

Yes, in a way. There are no pre-built binaries or installation CD images
 but ince everyone can access the source-code (even make copies of the
source-tree) anyone can checkout any version they like and build and use.

Either one can choose to use the absolute latest code in HEAD, or one
can go the safe route and follow the changes to a release branch. A
third alternative is to follow the Preview-tag, which is somewhere
between a release branch and HEAD.

All FOSS projects where you can access the repository allows for rolling
releases, but in general I would advice against using it for a
production system since every update might introduce instabilities,
bugs, and other kinds of problems. In corporate settings regular
releases are usually preferable since they allow for planned upgrades.

-- 
Erik Wikström