From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 18 5:36:48 2002 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 5C0A337B401 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:36:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1340743E42 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:36:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D198A18BD; Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:36:40 -0400 (AST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:36:40 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Lefteris Tsintjelis Cc: Ceri Davies , Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) In-Reply-To: <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr> Message-ID: <20021118093226.E23359-100000@hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Lefteris Tsintjelis wrote: > > > > > Ceri Davies wrote: > > > > > > > > Also, to those suggesting that Marc should be running -RELEASE anyway, consider > > > > that bugs found in a -RELEASE typically have even less chance of getting fixed > > > > than bugs found in -STABLE (because only "critical" bugfixes are allowed). > > > > > > > > Ceri > > > > > > OK, I am confused here. I was planning on setting up a production server > > > and after reading all your messages, it still isn't clear to me weather > > > it is going to be -STABLE or -RELEASE. Chances are -RELEASE of course > > > but if a bug is found (rare most likely but still possible) and isn't > > > committed fast enough, isn't this a big problem for a production server? > > > > This is pretty much the whole argument ... and it isn't a matter of > > "committed fast enough", its a matter of "never committed at all", at > > least not to the RELENG_4_7 branch ... > > If its a matter of "never committed at all" (I do have a few doubts on > this one) The only changes made to RELENG_4_7 (in the past month) have been for critical security related issues (ie. the bind8 vulnerability) ... > then I guess I have no other choice here but -STABLE or at least some > other branch that is at least maintained. So, which one might that be? -STABLE and -CURRENT appear to be the only ones that are actively maintained ... I definitely only play with -CURRENT on my laptop, as I don't need it for anything critical ... I do run -STABLE on a dozen or so desktop and server machines at the University without problems, but the most loaded one is my internet gateway, so there isn't much in the way of 'non-kernel' software running on that ... I'm a little nervous, now, for bringing our new mail server online / to full capacity, since there will be >4000 users hitting it, but we'll see what happens ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message