Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:03:44 +0200 From: Torfinn Ingolfsen <torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <20080605080344.f99347ec.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <13A3FC54-B459-48C5-85CD-14CC38913838@netconsonance.com> References: <458FE12C-AE4D-48F9-8193-4663079CEEF8@netconsonance.com> <84EBEA5D3A1F47E79E8E12C4CF4D0314@multiplay.co.uk> <FB44670E-6F56-44BE-ADC4-23126420FAD8@netconsonance.com> <20080605003545.GP89632@k7.mavetju> <13A3FC54-B459-48C5-85CD-14CC38913838@netconsonance.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:19:03 -0700 Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote: > Edwin, I've been building testbed environments for over 20 years in > my professional career. I know a lot more than this basic concept. > > The costs in our environment for a proper testbed is $20k in > hardware and 3000 man hours. That's for a small test of comparable > small changes to the existing environment. > > Why would we take on this cost only to re-document well known and > already acknowledged bugs? I mean, really? I'm surprised that a test environment (for upgrade testing, load testing, release testing) isn't already in place. Some people (customers and operators alike) might think it is unprofessional and unsafe to run a production system without a test system available. If you have a test system available, why don't you use it? -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080605080344.f99347ec.torfinn.ingolfsen>