Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:58:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107222354320.68200-100000@snafu.adept.org> In-Reply-To: <200107230634.AIV82906@100m.mpr200-1.esr.lvcm.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Steve Lumos wrote: > It is very easy for a reasonable person to read (or more likely skim > [tell me you don't do it]) the description of -STABLE in the handbook > and conclude that it means what it sounds like, and then feel > bamboozled when they get here. I've been known to skim a doc or two, but something this critical isn't the place to skim. If the individual in question wishes to deploy a highly stable environment, one would think that individual would take great care - including following the suggestions made earlier by others (regression testing, staging, etc.). If you're not willing to actually read docs, regression test, stage, and do 'work' in general... Well, one could argue you get the amount of stability you deserve. Later, -Mike -- Log analysis mailing list: http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107222354320.68200-100000>