From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jul 23 11:46: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (snafu.adept.org [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAF437B403 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:45:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A41619EE0D; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12229B00C; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: Steve Lumos Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? In-Reply-To: <200107231814.AHR11632@100m.mpr200-2.esr.lvcm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > likely going to want to think twice about running [-CURRENT]." There > are a lot more people who ought to think twice about running -CURRENT > then just those who are "new to FreeBSD". I thought we were discussing -STABLE? Yes, I think we all agree there are a lot of people who should think twice before running -CURRENT. I thought wordage was already in place that pointed to this. > Do you dislike that sentence because you claim that -STABLE has been > widely tested, or that it should be depended on to work, or both? I dislike it for the reasons pointed to in my earlier post. > is instead. I would be interested to hear somebody > authoritative correct that, but otherwise it means the handbook needs > to be fixed. No big deal, seems to be happening already, everybody be > happy. I suppose now we're arguing over whether it really needs to be 'fixed', or simply 'massaged' to a form that satisfies everyone (which I also alluded to in my previous post). 'Fixed' implies some inheirent brokeness I'm not necessarily ready to admit. Afterall, if it's as broken as you seem to think, I guess deploying actually stable FreeBSD machines in production environemnts for the past 3-4 years has just been 'luck'. No document of this nature can be static. Things change, updates have to be made. Hopefully some of the individuals making change suggestions are actually submitting diffs, etc. as well. Later, -Mike -- Log analysis mailing list: http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message