Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:19:38 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <4507084A.4080002@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060912141547.GA11713@FS.denninger.net> References: <20060909173813.GA1388@FS.denninger.net> <45065C67.6040503@cs.tu-berlin.de> <20060912141547.GA11713@FS.denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Karl Denninger wrote:
> You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,
I think there are a lot of users who disagree with you on that one.
> and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something being
> broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!
These are different issues.
> I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back to
> -STABLE from -CURRENT that it <at least> be tested for the most common
> functionality (that is, does it work at all?) In this case all that someone
> had to do was boot the system and then detach and reattach a mirror component -
> the most basic of functionality - to detect that the patch was bad.
>
> That obviously wasn't done in this instance.
No one has disagreed with you about this. Several people have apologized
already. It's past time that you got over it.
That said, no matter how stable (in the dictionary term of the word) a
given branch of FreeBSD is (or is not) at any given time, nothing replaces
the need to test changes/updates yourself, on non-production hardware,
before deploying them to anything you care about. That is just as true of
FreeBSD as it is of any commercial software.
Time to move on here folks,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4507084A.4080002>