From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 13:46:10 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 33FCC16A4CF for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:46:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC4343D2D for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:46:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (nkdqte@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j18Dk7pP085584 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:46:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j18Dk6mi085583; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:46:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:46:06 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200502081346.j18Dk6mi085583@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.5.4-20000523 ("1959") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: ULE status X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG 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 13:46:10 -0000 Mipam 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. > > > Maybe i'm completly wrong in this interpretation? > [...] > I though what's in -stable should be safe to use, but i wasn't sure this > is the right understanding of 5-stable. No. There have always been things in -stable which were not "stable" itself. Of course, they were not enabled by default, and the documentation contained the appropriate warnings. There are always things which could perfectly be used to shot yourself in the foot. One of the well-known examples would be NULLFS and UNIONFS which were part of 3-stable and 4-stable all the time, but they weren't really stable in general (except under very limited, controlled conditions). (Note that I'm not saying anything about the stability of ULE.) Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "If you aim the gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it's UNIX's job to ensure reliable delivery of the bullet to where you aimed the gun (in this case, Mr. Foot)." -- Terry Lambert, FreeBSD-hackers mailing list.