Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:21:01 -0500 (EST) From: Mike <sturdee@mikesweb.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ULE status Message-ID: <20050208121945.V12287@saturn.mikesweb.com> 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
I compiled my kernel with ULE this morning on my AMD64 workstation to help test. All seems good so far. Anything in particular to keep an eye on? -Mike 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. > > -- > ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org > (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org > \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org > -------------------------------------- "Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050208121945.V12287>