Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:53:54 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <20060910005241.O1031@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20060910023619.GA32206@soaustin.net> References: <200609100159.k8A1xAIn089481@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20060909231448.E1031@ganymede.hub.org> <20060910023619.GA32206@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier 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 ... > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/decision-points.html > >> but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't >> classify as an 'oops' .... > > You've already made this point -- 3 times. What would you like us to do > now, punish the committer? Huh? My first post on this thread was in defense of MFCng into STABLE and acknowledging that 'mistakes happen', and then this one ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060910005241.O1031>