Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 04:58:55 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: Cedric Jonas <cedric@decemplex.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Running -CURRENT in production (was: Am I an Idiot?) Message-ID: <20061209025855.GA40786@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <200612082337.27059.joao@matik.com.br> References: <4579EB08.8080704@intersonic.se> <200612082203.30796.joao@matik.com.br> <20061209024002.29c216cf@luna> <200612082337.27059.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-12-08 23:37, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > On Friday 08 December 2006 22:40, C?dric Jonas wrote: > > Reread what he writes, and use your brain. He probably means that > > 5-CURRENT (which was CURRENT aka HEAD long time ago) runs since a huge > > amount a time without causing problems. And now, what was the initial > > question? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polite > > what do you defend here? > > 5.0 stopped then and to be correct it *IS* after it went to 5.1, 5.2, > 5.3, 5.5 to releng_5 today ... so what the heck 5.0_CURRENT-as-of-2000 > has to do with CURRENT as of dezember 2006 which by my understandings > is an evolution of releng_6? "Think" for a moment there, grasshopper. Why would a system state that its kernel version is 5.0-CURRENT 6 years after the time HEAD was the same as 5.0-CURRENT. The obvious answer is that it has been running without problems all this time and its kernel was *NEVER* recompiled since back then. Now, does it all make more sense? Can we also, please, drop this pointless thread, because it is already far too off-topic for this particular mailing list? - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061209025855.GA40786>