From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 11 02:02:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9ED116A40F for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:02:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfarmer@goldsword.com) Received: from imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net (imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.59.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A30643D45 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:02:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jfarmer@goldsword.com) Received: from ibm67aec.bellsouth.net ([65.13.105.239]) by imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060911020229.VFDZ22536.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm67aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:02:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.33] (really [65.13.105.239]) by ibm67aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060911020227.LPUM2428.ibm67aec.bellsouth.net@[192.168.1.33]> for ; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:02:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4504C3B7.7090400@goldsword.com> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:02:31 -0400 From: "J. T. Farmer" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20060910035614.282CD16A58D@hub.freebsd.org> <45049112.3@vwsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <45049112.3@vwsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:02:30 -0000 Volker wrote: >> This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed stable ... and yes, I do run stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the occasional 'oopses', but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't classify as an 'oops' .... >> >> > > Guys, > > we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software > which has been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking > about real software. > > Also, you should never go with -STABLE on a production server. I'm > sure this has been made clear in the handbook. If it's really a that > import server in production use, go with a RELEASE. -STABLE is not a > technology playground as CURRENT but should be seen as a BETA > testing system. If that's not the case, then why use RELEASE at all? > Pardon me, but I do have to interject a very large laugh here. What's the first recommendation that's made _every_ time someone posts a problem with a -RELEASE installation? It's "Well, go update to -STABLE and then we will might be able to help you." Simply put, running a -RELEASE means that you _are_ running software with _known_ problems. I'm very thankful for all the work that people put into FreeBSD. However, that doesn't blind me to problems with the current setup. It may be the best that we have, it may be better than the Linux world, but that doesn't mean that it solves all our problems and that we can't improve it. John (FreeBSD since 2.0.x on an AMD K5-100 with 16MB of ram...) ------------------------------------------------------------------ John T. Farmer Owner & CTO GoldSword Systems jfarmer@goldsword.com 865-691-6498 Knoxville TN Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software