From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 29 19:01:05 2003 Return-Path: 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 B489F16A4CE for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net (firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.247]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DD343FE9 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:01:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from richardcoleman@mindspring.com) Received: from adsl-068-213-016-023.sip.asm.bellsouth.net ([68.213.16.23] helo=mindspring.com) by firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AF33U-00071A-00; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:01:00 -0800 Message-ID: <3FA07EEE.4030305@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:01:02 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Organization: Critical Magic, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass References: <200310291641.JAA27852@lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <200310291641.JAA27852@lariat.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 1ee258965991efcb0865379cdb43356e5e89bb4777695beb702e37df12b9c9ef2ad4b5e8e11d31e62c9131a42aa81088350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How stable is 4.9-RELEASE proving to be? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: richardcoleman@mindspring.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:01:05 -0000 That's a tricky question. But all my machines have been tracking 4-stable, and how found it very stable. I think it comes down to whether you have problematic hardware. Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com Brett Glass wrote: > We need immediate feedback on the stability of FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. (Yes, I > know, people are just starting to download it now.) We want and need some of > the important fixes that went into -STABLE in the past month (including vital > upates to IPFW2), but can't afford to put a release that's not absolutely > solid on a production system. (For the same reason, we probably won't go to > 5.x until 5.3.) The comment in the release notes suggesting that conservative > users stick with 4.8-RELEASE is not encouraging. If 4.9 isn't stable, we may > be forced to jump over to OpenBSD 3.4 for new production systems.