From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 26 11:32:28 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276FB106564A; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:32:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com) Received: from alogreentechnologies.com (alogreentechnologies.com [67.212.226.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE9E8FC08; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amd620.ovitrap.com ([49.128.188.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by alogreentechnologies.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q1QBWJ9n020592; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:32:25 -0700 From: Erich Dollansky To: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:32:17 +0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/8.3-PRERELEASE; KDE/4.7.4; amd64; ; ) References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <201202240835.32041.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201202261832.17793.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:32:28 -0000 Hi, On Sunday 26 February 2012 18:16:53 Chris Rees wrote: > On 24 February 2012 01:35, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > On Friday 24 February 2012 01:25:01 Damien Fleuriot wrote: > >> > >> This is NOT a troll. > >> This is NOT a flame. > >> Do NOT hijack this thread to troll/flame. > >> > > allow them some fun too. > >> > >> > >> Now, I find the number of problem reports regarding 9.0-RELEASE alarming > >> and I'm growing more and more fearful towards it. > >> > >> In the current state of things, I have *absolutely* no wish to run it in > >> production :( > >> > > Did you read deeply into the strategy behind the releases? If I remember right, the odd numbers are a little bit more experimental compared to the even numbers. For myself, I try to stick with even numbers whenever possible. If I install FreeBSD on a serious machine, I never use x.0. It must be at least x.1. > > There's no such odd/even number policy with FreeBSD-- I think you're > thinking of another OS ;) > maybe something got stuck in my head with the move from 4 to 5. How easy was the move to 6 then? Independent of this, it is still true that there is always the older branch available when a new one opens at .0. > You're right that x.0 is slightly more experimental in general though > (by its nature, it must be). And has nothing to do with FreeBSD as such. Erich