Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:35:17 +0100 (MET) From: Mipam <mipam@ibb.net> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081433090.22612@ux11.ltcm.net> In-Reply-To: <200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081306440.28295@ux11.ltcm.net> <Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081400570.22612@ux11.ltcm.net> <200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > 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 > 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 > (what's in -stable should be safe to use), why do you ask at all? In any > case, the ULE MFC commits are only a few days old, so there's naturally not > much feedback available, good or bad. If you want to play it safe, wait a > week or a month and monitor this lists for complaints before trying it > yourself. Well i asked to see whether my interpretation was right and so it appears i am not right so i'll follow your advice and wait some before enabling it on some crucial machines here. I will enable it today on a less crucial machine though. :-) I though what's in -stable should be safe to use, but i wasn't sure this is the right understanding of 5-stable. Bye, Mipam.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSO.4.56.0502081433090.22612>