From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jun 12 11:18:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA21144 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twwells.com (twwells.com [199.79.159.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA21134 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by twwells.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #8) id m0uTuUz-00017xC; Wed, 12 Jun 96 14:18 EDT To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Subject: Re: adaptec disk controllers and 2.1-RELEASE Date: 12 Jun 1996 14:18:29 -0400 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <4pn1ll$cu0@twwells.com> References: <4pl201$rov@twwells.com> <199606121218.FAA00971@Root.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.twwells.com Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article <199606121218.FAA00971@Root.COM>, David Greenman wrote: : -stable is not a release. I know that. I was referring to the various snapshots. : a recent snapshot of -stable, but it doesn't have the latest aha2940 fixes. : When I said "upgrade to -stable", I meant using SUP to update your source tree : to the current -stable sources. There's a leetle problem with this. The machine is question is a production machine and the last thing I need is to make it go unstable by installing whatever happens to be the latest source. I'm sticking to releases and snapshots and then only if I don't hear of significant problems. >From what you're saying, it looks like what I need to do is get the latest snapshot _and_ the latest stable and retrofit the necessary changes. So, before I go to this pain, is it reasonable to attempt this? Should it fix my problems?