From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Nov 16 20:24:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F4D37B401 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:24:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailg.telia.com (mailg.telia.com [194.22.194.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02EE43E77 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:24:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from home@jukkis.net) Received: from d1o989.telia.com (d1o989.telia.com [213.65.228.241]) by mailg.telia.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gAH4OhB6016814 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 05:24:43 +0100 (CET) X-Original-Recipient: Received: from sjukebox.js (h109n2fls32o989.telia.com [217.208.125.109]) by d1o989.telia.com (8.10.2/8.10.1) with ESMTP id gAH4OgK09930 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 05:24:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20021116221745.X23359-100000@hub.org> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 05:26:04 +0100 (CET) From: home@jukkis.net To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 17-Nov-2002 Marc G. Fournier wrote: > But, back to my question "What happens when RELENG_4_7 crashes?" ... in > the past, before I did anything else, I'd upgrade to -STABLE, figuring it > might be something that someone else caught and was fixed ... but, looking > at the above changes in RELENG_4_7, it seems that reporting the crash is > more or less useless ... if its already fixed in -STABLE, is someone going > to MFC it down to RELENG_4_7? > > Up until this weekend, I had two heavily used/loaded servers pounding on > -STABLE ... if one crashed, I had netdump in place to dump core to the > other server, so that I had a crashdump ... and I'd report the results I > could figure out, in hopes that *someone* would look at it and get it > fixed, or ask me for more information on the bug ... basically, I'd risk a > crash in the hopes of solidifying the OS for the next release, but I kind > of hope(d) that -STABLE would at least run for more then a day or two :( > Isn't that the point? You run -STABLE to ensure that it is and will become -STABLE. If it's not, you will let everyone know that. How long have you been running stable, and how many times have you had to tell that it's crashing? FWIW, I have not had serious problems for 3 years. That's pretty good for me, but that's not how it's supposed to be. The way it should be, is that I should have problems at least every year, to give some feedback that "this particular thing is not working" - of course, the more seldom, the better.. As for the alpha/beta, current/stable thing, I've always said, -current is *the* *most* *absolute* *dont-expect-it-to-work* *latest* version, -stable is "-stabler" really. RELEASE is "the version that the people who know better, have chosen to be the representative of the current FreeBSD status".. my 2 cents. ----------------------- [17-Nov-2002 05:11:53] Jukkis - home@jukkis.net - www.jukkis.net Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message