Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:05:13 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: kalts@estpak.ee, Sam Drinkard <sam@wa4phy.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS?) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021117142506.00e60dc0@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <20021117192103.GB1909@tiiu.internal> References: <3DD7E2EC.5050805@vortex.wa4phy.net> <F32yELid1epQzz4IXQp00019522@hotmail.com> <20021117224945.A806@grosbein.pp.ru> <20021117182801.GB1131@tiiu.internal> <3DD7E2EC.5050805@vortex.wa4phy.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:21 PM 11/17/02 +0200, Vallo Kallaste wrote: >Well, I don't have any hard facts to guard my words unfortunately, >because all the memories are under the dust of time. This all can go >down to the simple fact that when I first jumped over to FreeBSD >from Linux on 2.2.1 days I was a greenhorn and my needs were very >simple. But I remember the fact that I were switching because of >Linux unstability. Still, my overall feeling is that stability has >gotten worse over time. IMO. I'd have to say just the opposite for the same period of time (2.1.5 really), then I manage to miss stepping on most of the bugs that creep in or wonder why others are having issues with various sub-systems. What I do know if there are more using -stable and many that *should not* or should being doing far more reading than they do, which makes it a matter of perception. Frankly build errors shouldn't factor in, as most are pilot error. Myself have only run into 2 build problems in 7 years. Then I do bother to read before building (and thus avoid the few *true* issues) and even might wait a day or 3 after pulling source to actually build and install. Need we even mention the number of users with questionable hardware. Does seem a bit more quite on the front than it used to be compared to say last year. Not to pick on anyone, but for as long as I can recall Marc (scrappy@hub.org) has run afoul of many problems and it's either due to taking risks or just shit luck and stepping on every odd and rare bug there is. Not that it's any fun being the exception. 8-/ Also don't recall the handbook ever saying -stable for production environments and think Eugene is spewing FUD or whoever put that in the handbook was smoking crack. Besides, the security branches came about for those with production systems or those less willing to gamble on new features. As for -stable and -current diverging. Well, that happens and can mean less developer time spent on -stable. I hardly think that an issue (it was concern at one point and there was a need for more working on -current for 5.0) considering the commits to keep gratuitous changes from creeping in and work that is done on the -stable brank or even the few MFS's seen from time to time. Not for me to say that this time around there are a more differences between them than ever before for a major branch, but doubt it isn't the case and those going to track RELENG_5 when it spins off... My guess is the -stable list will be rather busy and many running "the latest and greatest" won't bother to do their homework. <sigh> Only thing in support of being a bit unstable is that it has appeared a bit more bumpy than usual after 4.7R. Then some things *could* affect systems under my control, so I tend to turn a bit more conservative. Perception again and yet anyone that has been around should know that before and after releases is when breakage is more likely. Not to mention it is after a release that new features and major changes are committed and "buyer beware" should be the rule. Otherwise business as usual, IMO. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20021117142506.00e60dc0>