From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue May 25 19: 3:40 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from homer.talcom.net (unknown [209.5.1.4])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FD114BEC
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 May 1999 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from leo@homer.talcom.net)
Received: (from leo@localhost)
	by homer.talcom.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) id WAA23327
	for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 25 May 1999 22:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:06:32 -0400
From: Leo Papandreou <leo@talcom.net>
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [Q] How stable is FreeBSD 3.X ?
Message-ID: <19990525220632.A22788@homer.talcom.net>
References: <199905250611.XAA00594@dingo.cdrom.com> <000001bea677$bc99d5f0$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <000001bea677$bc99d5f0$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>; from David Schwartz on Mon, May 24, 1999 at 11:28:00PM -0700
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Organization: Not very, no.
X-Wife: Forgotten but not gone.
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 11:28:00PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Speaking from a developer's viewpoint; if a complaint from any quarter
> > doesn't contain the bare minimum of real information needed to identify
> > the problem (or at least problem class) it's worthless.  In fact, it's
> > worse than worthless, it's an active waste of my time even thinking
> > about it.
> 
> 	That I do disagree with. The complaint was precise -- the RELEASE was not
> stable.
> 

Then you'll agree with this: 3-R is/was stable as a rock on my hardware.
Why wasnt it released earlier?

> 	While it did not contain enough information to solve the problem, there are
> certainly possible solutions to it

That makes sense.


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