From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 21:21:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFF016A40F for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:21:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D32FF43CB1 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:21:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 22388 invoked by uid 399); 17 Dec 2006 21:21:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Dec 2006 21:21:58 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <4585B4EC.1070906@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:21:48 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.freebsd.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061215) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Astrodog References: <4579EB08.8080704@intersonic.se> <20061210.230622.-1844001233.imp@bsdimp.com> <45845F8B.3060304@intersonic.se> <45851DBC.9010604@FreeBSD.org> <2fd864e0612170807x20ff699x42538cfa497c1398@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2fd864e0612170807x20ff699x42538cfa497c1398@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Am I an Idiot? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:21:51 -0000 Astrodog wrote: > Something that, in my opinion, may have been missed in all of this, > It hasn't been missed. It's been said over and over again. > Why, exactly, do you want to run -CURRENT in production? If you had actually read this thread, you'd know the answer to that. > Running -CURRENT is quite a bit more work than running -STABLE. The OP has stated repeatedly that he knows this, and is willing to do the work as long as time is available. > Many of the > problems that may exist in -CURRENT will be induced by specific > types of load. Race conditions, Lock Order Reversal, and certain > driver issues in many cases, only appear under particularly heavy > loads, or particular types of load. What this means, simply, is > that when you test the next version of -CURRENT you'd like to run, > there's quite a bit of testing you'll have to do. And this exact testing is what we need from the user base if we're going to make this thing work. It's ok if _you_ don't want to do it (really, it is), but please stop trying to discourage someone who has said repeatedly that he knows what he is signing up for. > Along side this > type of problem, is the issue of security. If you are running > -CURRENT as of 2 weeks ago, and a security vulnerability is > discovered, in some cases, you will be compelled to upgrade to the > latest -CURRENT, even if it has known stability problems, or > performance/functionality regression. Um, that's just bollocks. If the only way you know how to update a system is buildworld, you really should not be giving someone advice on system administration. Enough is enough already. This thread pole-vaulted past its useful lifetime ages ago, let's let it die. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection