Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:42:24 +0100 From: Adrian Wontroba <aw1@stade.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck_ufs locked in snaplk Message-ID: <20060426224224.GD717@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060425234603.eba09894.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> References: <20060425004405.G44618@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060424205026.GA18844@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060425134418.J57625@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060425080932.1rv9hq0rcws4wc84@www.wolves.k12.mo.us> <20060425162656.GC54244@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060425213313.R71240@woozle.rinet.ru> <444E8E48.8040008@rogers.com> <20060425211417.GA58948@xor.obsecurity.org> <444E96A1.3010307@rogers.com> <20060425234603.eba09894.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:46:03PM +0200, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > It could also be viewed as irresponsible to have servers in production > _without_ a corresponding test system to test proposed changes on. True, but some us are blessed with a collection of assorted ancient cast off servers, and can not justify to money focused management a test system for every type of production server / function. We then sometimes pay the price for doing things on the cheap when an exotic bug strikes in less heavily exercised code. If you're different and you know it, test! (or clap your hands in woe?) -- Adrian Wontroba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060426224224.GD717>