Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:59:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Matthew Reimer <mreimer@vpop.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <199904211759.KAA07157@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19990421174502.ECEC61F2A@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Matthew Reimer wrote:
:> Great work guys! It almost seems that -current is more stable than
:> -stable!
:>
:> Matt
:
:Funny you should mention it. I've heard this from a number of people over
:the last week.. One has even suggested using a particular known-good 4.0
:snapshot in preference to a 3.1-stable for a production system......
:
:Cheers,
:-Peter
I think that people should stick with 3.x unless there is something in
-current that they really need such as the fixed NFS. current's core is
very solid now and getting better, but a lot of the peripheral stuff
has undergone rapid change. The new bus structure, the new compiler, the
kernel build setup, configuration changes, and so forth. It's hard
to keep up with it. I expect it will settle down in the next month or so.
Most of the bug fixes have been backported to -stable. Getting the new
VM system into -stable ( which I want to do just after the 3.2 release )
is going to require brute force, though. Unfortunately, the most recent
fixes to NFS fall into that category so NFS-centric installations may need
to use -current.
:To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
:with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
:
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904211759.KAA07157>