Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:32:05 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: George Michaelson <ggm@connect.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: siguing into current from a random version Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961208202332.10130B-100000@downlink.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <15134.850093743@connect.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, George Michaelson wrote: > > Snaps are good but the timelag between snaps and interesting state in current > is bad. If you're saying that for any given SUP state you can go from the > last snap to current without tripping over any non-reversable states, well > and good. I don't think you're saying that :-) > > I suppose an assumption many neophytes like myself make is that CVS commits > happen to complete sets of *tested* changes and not work in progress, so that > the worst-case state is the testing (by author/cvs-changer) didn't cover for > ones own particular setup and circumstances. > > Looks like you're saying its more fluid, and simply doing a make world on > the result of a sup on current is caveat emptor. It's laid out honestly in the handbook, current is NOT guaranteed buildable, and has in recent memory gone through some fairly rough periods of unbuildability. It's been fairly stable lately, but folks shouldn't assume that's a permanent thing, it's simply chance. If you can't risk outage, and you don't enjoy helping to find bugs, then you probably should avoid current. Snaps are halfway stable, but they're more in the way of beta releases, before actual releases. > I can handle that, if there is some indication in the logs/readmes/mail to > say when its known current is unrunnable. To find that out, subscribe to the commit lists, which anyone running current should absolutely do anyhow. There AREN'T announcements that say "it's stable now", but there are often announcements of the type "this'll breaks things, do this to correct it". > Thats kinda what the NetBSD doc/CHANGES is all about: things in there reflect > coarser grain documentation than individual CVS commits. By the time its > logged there, its probably 1/2 way stable. > > It looks to me like the best bet for a time to re-sync is the xmas holidays > since the frequency of changes to CVS will be lower... No. If you don't want to find bugs, don't resync to current, ever. They do come up, and there won't be apologies, that's what current is for, putting things out for test. Like I said, current is stable now, but in 6 hours, who knows? Snaps might be safer for you. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.961208202332.10130B-100000>