From owner-freebsd-stable  Sat Apr 19 15:10:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA18174
          for stable-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA18161
          for <stable@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191])
          by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id PAA00967; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194])
	by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA05455;
	Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gdonl@localhost)
	by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA02616;
	Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com>
Message-Id: <199704192210.PAA02616@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 15:10:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: Don Wilde <Don@PartsNow.com>
       "stable gotta be stable!" (Apr 19,  1:32pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95)
To: Don Wilde <Don@PartsNow.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Subject: Re: stable gotta be stable!
Cc: stable@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Apr 19,  1:32pm, Don Wilde wrote:
} Subject: stable gotta be stable!
} I have 4 on-line machines which are running 2.1.7. I am hesitant 
} to use 2.2.1 until I know both the X and 2940 problems are put to bed.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I'm running a version somewhere between
2.1.6 and 2.1.7 and have been hesitant to upgrade due to the 2940 changes
that started sometime before 2.1.7.  It's my understanding that the same
changes were made in both the 2.1.x and 2.2.x branches.  I haven't seen
any problem reports since the last set of changes, so maybe it's finally
a good time to upgrade.

} 	I do not intend to use the CDROM.COM servers to update via 
} internet as I have a lot of machines to update (besides the live 
} machines)and I don't have spare bandwidth or the time to babysit full 
} upgrades. I have been using the CD's as my -stable. I **DO** need to be 
} able to view them as stable, as my company depends on its webservers and 
} firewall for its very business.

In my case, the CD's are pretty useless, and I really don't much care
if formal releases are done, since I've added a number of local changes
to what we're running here.  What I've been doing is tracking the 2.1
tree using CTM.  I upgrade one machine with "make world".  I then do
a "make release", to build a customized release distribution that I
install on an internal anonymous ftp server.  I can then install or
upgrade all the other machines from this server at Ethernet speed.

			---  Truck