Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:29:14 +0100 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Mipam <mipam@ibb.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081400570.22612@ux11.ltcm.net> References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net> <200502081358.08045.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081400570.22612@ux11.ltcm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart5512871.imPRWHRlRU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 14:02, Mipam wrote: > Okay clear, but the fact that it's in 5-stable suggests the it's stable to > use, else why would it be in 5-stable. The changes that have been merged to stable have been tested for some time = in=20 6-CURRENT, so they're not completely experimental, yes. > Maybe i'm completly wrong in this interpretation? I'm not sure what your interpretation is. If you go by your own definition= =20 (what's in -stable should be safe to use), why do you ask at all? In any=20 case, the ULE MFC commits are only a few days old, so there's naturally not= =20 much feedback available, good or bad. If you want to play it safe, wait a=20 week or a month and monitor this lists for complaints before trying it=20 yourself. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart5512871.imPRWHRlRU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCCL6vXhc68WspdLARApMEAKCeeB13pqpshXf7UVIbGWC7HSZjmACdGTmp 1ieEet+K5fws92hGgCEm1bM= =BggY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5512871.imPRWHRlRU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock>