From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jun 29 13:16:40 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7D537B681 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e5TKGSP16798; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:28 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Doug Barton Cc: Andy , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 3.5 now available . . . . . Message-ID: <20000629131627.T275@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Doug@gorean.org on Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 12:48:06PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Doug Barton [000629 12:56] wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Andy wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > I don't know what you're talking about "merging into future 4.x builds". > > > 4.x is already much more stable than 3.x ever was..the bug-fixing has > > > already taken place during the development of the 4.0 branch. > > > > Not to start a massive flamewar here, but in my personal > > experience with multiple FreeBSD boxes in a live environment, I've found > > that 3.x is much more stable than the 4.x servers. I've gone so far as to > > revert the 4.x server back to 3.x. I'm going to revisit the issue when it > > becomes 4.1. > > It's a pretty safe bet that your problems won't have been fixed if > you didn't tell anyone about them. But it makes it so much less challenging for us developers working on our ESP abilities to diagnose these problems that we never hear about! ... or something. pfft, -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message