From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 11 02:07:47 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 532ED16A403
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:07:47 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz)
Received: from linda-3.paradise.net.nz (linda-3.paradise.net.nz
	[203.96.152.182])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC70F43D46
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:07:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from markir@paradise.net.nz)
Received: from smtp-2.paradise.net.nz
	(tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by
	linda-3.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id
	<0J5E00LYBOKU8O@linda-3.paradise.net.nz> for
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:07:42 +1200 (NZST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-29-47.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.29.47])
	by smtp-2.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27953CA4210	for
	<freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:07:42 +1200 (NZST)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:07:25 +1200
From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>
In-reply-to: <20060911001117.GA44739@FS.denninger.net>
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Message-id: <4504C4DD.5020902@paradise.net.nz>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060704)
References: <20060910183958.GA35701@FS.denninger.net>
	<00c301c6d50d$751ffe80$0a0aa8c0@rivendell>
	<20060911001117.GA44739@FS.denninger.net>
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 <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:07:47 -0000

Karl Denninger wrote:
>
>
> 
> No, I would like -STABLE to be treated as what it is claimed to be - BETA
> code, not ALPHA code.
> 
> There's a huge difference between the two, and MFCing something back to
> -STABLE without testing the <BASIC> functionality of the module you're working
> with first does not fit the BETA model (it DOES fit the Alpha model.)
> 
> This is coming from someone who has run FreeBSD in a production environment
> for basically 10 years, and has even sometimes used -CURRENT during that time
> (with full knowledge that running THAT is, indeed, ALPHA code!)
> 
> 

I guess part of the problem is not enough of us running -CURRENT, so 
bugs can slip through into -STABLE via MFC (I know I'm guilty here - 2 
boxes running -STABLE, none on -CURRENT....)

Cheers

Mark