From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Apr 21 13:13:11 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9C2CA15440; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA08036;
	Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <199904212009.NAA08036@apollo.backplane.com>
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.cisco.com>
Cc: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), current@FreeBSD.ORG,
	stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files)
References:  <199904211751.NAA31922@misha.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

:Speaking of, when can we expect to see this wonderfull _stability_
:improvement in -stable? I'm setting up a server here, and would
:rather have fixed NFS code in it... Yet, jumping to -current is
:officially wrong... Thanks!
:
:	-mi

    Well, you already see a lot of the pure bug fixes being backported.
    What you don't see in -stable are the bug fixes that also depend on the
    rewritten portions of the system, nor do you see the rewritten portions 
    of the system themselves.  The latest NFS patch is borderline -- it
    would be possible to backport in time enough for the 3.2 deadline, but
    it wouldn't be fun.

					-Matt
					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon@backplane.com>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message