Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:56:55 -0700 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ok, are all the panics fixed now? Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <20030827233934.O48169@news1.macomnet.ru> References: <20030827133126.D4269@odysseus.silby.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030826212312.07923ea0@209.112.4.2> <5.2.0.9.0.20030826212312.07923ea0@209.112.4.2> <20030827122327.GA17847@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20030827133126.D4269@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 23:42 27/08/2003 +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote: >On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 13:34-0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > So, I think we'll just include a warning with 4.9: > > > > WARNING! > > > > Do not attempt to stress a FreeBSD 4.9 machine if you: > >or "Upgrade your FreeBSD to RedHat". s/RedHat/FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE/ >It's simple: we need to backout all these untested MFCs. Or fix the bugs. I don't know anything about the code in question, but now that people are getting repeatable panics, I assume that tracking down the bugs will be rather easier. There was a time when STABLE absolutely needed to be stable, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case any more; now that we have all the release/security branches, I think it's safe to say that most systems which need absolute stability aren't going to be running STABLE. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8>