From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Feb 3 11:31:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA07518 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:31:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hp9000.chc-chimes.com (hp9000.chc-chimes.com [206.67.97.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA07488 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:31:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from billf@chc-chimes.com) Received: from localhost by hp9000.chc-chimes.com with SMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA277709199; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:39:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 08:39:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fumerola To: mwlucas@exceptionet.com Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -stable too early? (was re: Kernel panic with recent RELENG_3) In-Reply-To: <199902031447.JAA03089@easeway.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 mwlucas@exceptionet.com wrote: > I won't consider 3.0-stable to be as reliable as 2.2.-stable until I see a > similar notice. > > The -stable tag isn't a guarantee of reliability. It's equivalent to the > developers saying, "We won't *deliberately* destroy your system." It's important to note the difference between 3.0-STABLE and 4.0-CURRENT is really only just a bunch of VM/-Wfoo fixes by dillon and co. - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message