Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:00:42 +0500 From: rihad <rihad@mail.ru> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 7.0-BETA1 Message-ID: <471F09BA.7090406@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <20071024081916.GJ91307@core.byshenk.net> References: <471E3620.306@mail.ru> <471E62CB.3020902@intersonic.se> <20071024081916.GJ91307@core.byshenk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Byshenk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:08:27PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: >> rihad wrote: > >>> How risky is it to start using 7.0-BETA1 in production, with the >>> intention of upgrading to release as soon as possible? Thanks. > >> We've used 7-CURRENT since January on a couple of production boxes and >> had very few disasters, well, none, but a couple of issues. > >> "Risky" is a relative term really, but if you ask me I'd say the "risk" >> is rather low. > My question was more a theoretical one: it's called BETA for some reason, otherwise it'd still be in HEAD. To me BETA means that no major architectural changes are expected in it any more, no? >> But: TEST FIRST! > > I concur with Per. I've been running 7-CURRENT on a couple of "production" > machines for some months, without any serious problems -- but these are not > mission-critical machines. > Our machine-to-be is quite mission-critical... But if I start with the latest 6.x release, it would be more difficult to migrate to 7.0 when it comes out than if I start with 7.0-BETA?. I've known people running 4-STABLE or 5-STABLE branches on mission-critical machines, without even bothering to upgrade, but I think they're stress-testing their luck ;-) So I don't want to join their camp, that's why I asked for advice ;-) Again it's named BETA for a reason, so it could be less intrusive than STABLE?.. I will definitely start with beta if it reaches BETA2 in a week or two - the time I got ;-) Thanks for advice.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?471F09BA.7090406>