Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:32:58 +0000 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Peter Maloney <peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports Message-ID: <CAFHbX1JEmnTOCt3sPvbSQ=XTAPi4DvsKNi92hSo9r8cW0QWtGw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F46ADC8.2080408@brockmann-consult.de> References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <op.v95ejibz34t2sn@tech304> <4F46ADC8.2080408@brockmann-consult.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Peter Maloney <peter.maloney@brockmann-consult.de> wrote: > I suggest these concepts should be tested: > > Perhaps the testers tested beta1 and beta2, but there were so many > changes after beta2, that bugs appeared in release that did not exist in > beta2. Test this by reproducing things reported in release also in beta1 > or 2. > > Perhaps the people who know the rule about running .0 releases (such as > myself) never bothered to test beta1, beta2, or even release .0 (true in > my case). If so, then this rule is a very bad one. Test this with a poll. > At $JOB, we never install a N.0 release either, but only because the .0 release has such a brief life. The N.1 and N.3 releases have extended lifetimes, and so we tend to only use those versions. Cheers Tomhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFHbX1JEmnTOCt3sPvbSQ=XTAPi4DvsKNi92hSo9r8cW0QWtGw>