Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:59:04 GMT From: Richard Caley <richard@caley.org.uk> To: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <200211181559.gAIFx4BO027201@pele.r.caley.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Lefteris Tsintjelis's message of Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:27:23 %2B0200 References: <3DD906DB.5591BF01@ene.asda.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think the answer is obviously, long time testing and monitoring.
> But you can have a -STABLE that is reliable and *critical* patches are
> applied quickly. I believe that this is what mostly this thread is about.
I refer the honourable gentleman to his above comment `long time
testing and monitoring'.
How can you have patches applied quickly and also have long time
testing necessary to assure everyone that it is not going to break
somethign way-over-there. That is my understanding of the difference
between RELEASE and STABLE. Releases have intensive testing as an
integrated whole.
Of course it all comes down to what is considered critical. The bind
fixes went in quickly because they filled big holes in many
instlations and are relatively isolated. A fix to somethign deep in
ther kernel which is not biteing many people?
^_^
(O O)
\_/@@\
\\~~/
~~
- RJC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211181559.gAIFx4BO027201>