From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 29 08:41:40 2003 Return-Path: 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 51C8616A4CE for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:41:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A4343FBF for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:41:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27852 for stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:41:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:41:37 -0700 (MST) From: Brett Glass Message-Id: <200310291641.JAA27852@lariat.org> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: How stable is 4.9-RELEASE proving to be? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:40 -0000 We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems. Will there be a 4.9.1 if there are serious problems in 4.9? --Brett Glass