Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:26:49 +0200 From: John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Subject: Re: Ok, are all the panics fixed now? Message-ID: <20030828042649.GA96634@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8@popserver.sfu.ca> 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> <5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8@popserver.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> 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. But the security branches don't get bug fixes, only security fixes. So at the the end we don't have a branch for stability anymore. I think that is a step in the wrong direction. I think by the time we get to x.4 or x.5 of a branch, it should be rock stable and only get bug fixes, with maybe device drivers added. Big changes should be avoided. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030828042649.GA96634>