Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:01:14 +0200 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Upcoming release schedule - 8.4 ? Message-ID: <96D1E708-FBBE-4E7F-B70A-4AA48EFD3268@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <20120614144128.GB26121@lonesome.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206111537310.19012@kozubik.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206140649530.72545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CADLo83--6KyBptR2a4GgEy_CEW3trKxHT1k9ZzMu8P44cH5O2A@mail.gmail.com> <4FD9A0E2.9010101@my.gd> <20120614144128.GB26121@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 Jun 2012, at 16:41, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:29:22AM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> Whoever said STABLE is no good for production ? >>=20 >> I used to make us stick to 8.2-RELEASE here at work, but some bugfixes >> are just too important to skip (we're running firewalls and had a >> problem with a CARP bug). >=20 > In theory we try our best to keep -STABLE, well, stable in behavior and > not just the API, but in practice any given snapshot of -stable may or > may not have uncaught regressions in it. >=20 > I reiterate, the major difference between -stable and -release is a more > thorough QA process for the latter :-) >=20 > mcl We're indeed pretty happy with 8-STABLE :) We're ready to take the risk of a regression if the update squashes a bug th= at's a major PITA Thanks for your work on the project guys=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96D1E708-FBBE-4E7F-B70A-4AA48EFD3268>