From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 13:35:22 2005 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 39FD616A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:35:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ux11.ltcm.net (ux11.ltcm.net [64.215.98.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6937E43D41 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:35:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mipam@ibb.net) Received: from ux11.ltcm.net (mipam@localhost.ltcm.net [IPv6:::1]) by ux11.ltcm.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/UX11TT) with ESMTP id j18DZJ95025812; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:35:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (mipam@localhost) by ux11.ltcm.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id j18DZHpp009223; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:35:18 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: ux11.ltcm.net: mipam owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:35:17 +0100 (MET) From: Mipam X-X-Sender: mipam@ux11.ltcm.net To: Michael Nottebrock In-Reply-To: <200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Message-ID: References: <200502081429.19136.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:35:22 -0000 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.