# Release or stable?



## piggy (Oct 20, 2011)

I always installed -RELEASE branch. I was wondering it was the cutting edge FreeBSD software around (but the beta), now someone say it could be better to install -STABLE and apparently they fixed the memory leak bug in -STABLE and not in -RELEASE.

Which is the right branch to install to have a decently nantained branch and bug fixed?


----------



## SirDice (Oct 20, 2011)

A RELEASE only receives security fixes, not stability or functionality fixes. STABLE is continuously changing, it also means you can suddenly have some new feature or existing features could change. 

Handbook: 25.5 Tracking a Development Branch


----------



## vermaden (Oct 20, 2011)

@piggy

That is why I moved from RELEASE to STABLE, no BUG fixes on RELEASE.

That can help You to comprehend using up-to-date STABLE along with packages: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=149872


----------



## SirDice (Oct 20, 2011)

For production systems I would advise a -RELEASE version. For your own personal systems I'd definitely recommend a -STABLE. I've been running -STABLE since 3.something and I've never had any real issues. Only every now and then (happened maybe 2 or 3 times the past decade) something breaks. But that's usually fixed by updating the source and rebuilding again.


----------



## olav (Oct 20, 2011)

For a critical system exposed to the internet, a RELEASE version is better. For an ordinary system that doesn't need the latest security fixes a STABLE version can work very well. I don't update a STABLE system unless there is a need for it(bug fixes, security fixes or new functionality that I need). A security bug in Apache doesn't have to be related to the kernel, so updating the Apache webserver alone is good enough.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 20, 2011)

olav said:
			
		

> For a critical system exposed to the internet, a RELEASE version is better. For an ordinary system that doesn't need the latest security fixes a STABLE version can work very well.


This is not correct. The -STABLE version will get the same security fixes, at the same time, as a -RELEASE.


----------



## olav (Oct 20, 2011)

Yes, but updating a STABLE system for each security and bugfix will require way too much downtime.


----------



## Sylhouette (Oct 20, 2011)

for each security patch, there is as much work in STABLE as in RELEASE.
So no change there. Only if you use FreeBSD update then STABLE is a little bit more work.

Bug fixes could be installed but they do not have to be installed if you do not get bitten by them.

Using STABLE vs RELEASE is a dicision you have to make for yourself.


regards.
Johan


----------



## SirDice (Oct 20, 2011)

olav said:
			
		

> Yes, but updating a STABLE system for each security and bugfix will require way too much downtime.



The system doesn't need to go down during the build{world|kernel} phase. Updating takes about 10 minutes. Pretty much the same time is lost when updating a -RELEASE. 

Besides, you don't have to update everyday. You can do it when the need arises. On my own systems I do it approximately once a month. Unless a gaping security hole is found, then I might do it sooner.


----------



## piggy (Oct 20, 2011)

vermaden said:
			
		

> @piggy
> 
> That is why I moved from RELEASE to STABLE, no BUG fixes on RELEASE.
> 
> That can help You to comprehend using up-to-date STABLE along with packages: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=149872


Thankx, then reading what they write on the handbook make me think it could be better - for critical machines - to stay with RELEASE. They can't guarantee stability, they said STABLE is still a development branch.


> FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users.


They explicitly said "It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users" and this is not exactly what I want. I don't want to loose time at all with production machines and not even with my desktops. If I need to experiment, I will experiment with a dedicated machine, so better I stay with RELEASE.

Considering I've been on and off from the BSD world starting I think in 1995 or so, and I never ever installed STABLE branch once, I should give a look at it when I have some spare time to loose experimenting.

BTW, is it possible to upgrade RELEASE machine to a STABLE branch without loosing settings, configurations and stuff?


----------



## wblock@ (Oct 21, 2011)

piggy said:
			
		

> BTW, is it possible to upgrade RELEASE machine to a STABLE branch without loosing settings, configurations and stuff?



Of course.  buildworld and kernel are no problem, the only tricky part is mergemaster(8).


----------



## dave (Oct 23, 2011)

"This is still a development branch, however, and this means that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another engineering development track, not a resource for end-users."

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/current-stable.html


----------



## shitson (Oct 23, 2011)

If your using FreeBSD on a production system you should be tracking RELEASE and using freebsd-update to install errata/binary updates.

On a personal computer you use you can track either. Just remember that STABLE does not refer to running of the code, just the stability of the code base. 

Refer to: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...g=PA371#v=onepage&q=upgrading freebsd&f=false


----------



## bbzz (Oct 23, 2011)

Isn't RELEASE just a snapshot of STABLE? Is it always guarantied that RELEASE is more stable than another snapshot of STABLE? Especially since only RELEASE only gets security updates, not bug fixes like STABLE.


----------



## wblock@ (Oct 23, 2011)

bbzz said:
			
		

> Isn't RELEASE just a snapshot of STABLE?



It's a better tested version of a snapshot.



> Is it always guarantied that RELEASE is more stable than another snapshot of STABLE?



From Upgrading FreeBSD To -STABLE:


> That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means
> 
> The name "-STABLE" is frequently misunderstood. It does not mean solid or steady. -STABLE means that while code can change, the ABI (Application Binary Interface) will remain stable and not change. Programs compiled to run on FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE, or 8.1-RELEASE, or 8.2-RELEASE will continue to work on FreeBSD 8-STABLE. Effectively, -STABLE is the latest version of FreeBSD you can get without breaking installed software.



-RELEASE is supposed to be better tested than just an ordinary snapshot of -STABLE.

In practice, I think I've had about four problems with -STABLE over the last decade.  Most were due to incomplete updates on the mirror, and all caused build errors with no downtime.  csup again to get the latest code, and the problem was fixed.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 24, 2011)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> In practice, I think I've had about four problems with -STABLE over the last decade.  Most were due to incomplete updates on the mirror, and all caused build errors with no downtime.  csup again to get the latest code, and the problem was fixed.


I'll second that. In the 10 years I've been running -STABLE I've had the same issues every now and then. Nothing to write home about though. An update usually solved it as I most likely had gotten a source update in the middle of some big commit.


----------

