From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 9 13:59:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA10123 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:59:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from aries.fortean.com (aries.fortean.com [209.42.194.114]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA10073 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 13:59:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from walter@fortean.com) Received: from localhost (walter@localhost) by aries.fortean.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA17902 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:58:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from walter@fortean.com) X-Authentication-Warning: aries.fortean.com: walter owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:58:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce M. Walter" To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *HEADS UP* Correction to previous postings. In-Reply-To: <199803091924.OAA01358@eyelab.psy.msu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Gary Schrock wrote: > This is making me very concerned. We get about 3 hours warning on this, > and are told that for the time being as long as you update mount you > shouldn't have problems. Then later we get corrections to who this change > really affects. How well tested is this change? How do I *know* I'm not > going to have problems because something might have been missed? For that > matter, why did this need to be put in freebsd-STABLE instead of current? > To me it makes more sense to have put it there, because at least there one > expects changes that might break things. I don't do this too often, but I'm just getting too much activity from the -STABLE list ;) Tracking -STABLE is a responsibility folks! That's the bottom line. I use FreeBSD in a good number of applications, some mission critical and I simply don't see what the problem is here. It sure is a *privilege* to be able to track a working snapshot, but it's just as sure not *necessary* to track it. Folks go way out of their way here to maintain not only releases and snapshots, but up-to-the-minute sources as well. It's up to you to decide which fits your purposes. I'm fairly sure if this is going into -STABLE it's been beaten like a dead horse somewhere... Most likely in -CURRENT. And if it's a pretty big deal (and it is) I'm sure no-one would stick their necks out unless it was extremely desirable for 2.2.6. On the FreeBSD highway, -STABLE is one of the middle lanes. Slower traffic should keep right... ie: -RELEASE (in the US that is :) > I also find the attitude about people who have to do remote updates a bit > disconcerting. Some of us have no choice. I'm in the same boat here, too. Again, that machine does *NOT* track -STABLE. It runs -STABLE but only after I'm damn well sure I won't be driving 45 minutes to go and reboot it. - Bruce ======================================================================== || Bruce M. Walter || 107 Timber Hollow Court #335 || || Senior Network Consultant || Chapel Hill, NC 27514 || || Fortean Technologies, Inc. || Tel: 919-967-4766 || || Information Technology Consultants || Fax: 919-967-4395 || ======================================================================== || BSD Unix -- It's not just a job, it's a way of life! || ======================================================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message