Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:44:50 +0200 (CEST) From: "A. L. Meyers" <a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com> To: Lamont Granquist <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> Cc: <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <20010721204208.P78666-100000@nomad.consult-meyers.com> In-Reply-To: <20010721111339.B75328-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Lamont Granquist wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: > > Having followed the postings here for a few weeks it seems, at > > least occasionally, that "stable" appears to be a bit less than > > "stable". > (snip) > > Why is this so difficult for people to understand? *ANY* time you are > checking out the head of a development branch (even one where developers > are supposedly being "more careful") then you should expect to > occasionally see problems. People will break the build. People will have > insufficiently tested their code and subsystems will break. I guarantee > you that none of the FBSD developers have a sufficient testing matrix to > *ensure* that the changes which are checked into the top of the tree will > run on every platform out there (consider for a moment just how big the > x86 testing matrix is). I'm pretty damned impressed that -stable works as > well as it does (kudos for the developers). > Errare humanum est. Thanks for the explanations, Lamont. Greetings, Lucien 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?20010721204208.P78666-100000>