Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:22:51 -0400 From: Brad Laue <brad@brad-x.com> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: glib12 port build failure in -stable (update) Message-ID: <3D49FB0B.1050507@brad-x.com> References: <20020801231558.P87489-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: >>I hate to go on a rant, but -STABLE broke three times yesterday, too - >>this is -STABLE, why is this happening all of a sudden? I'm supposed to >>be able to put implicit faith in it! >> >> > >Well, the security branch (RELENG_4_6 for example) is more "stable" and >changes much less frequently. For any production server, I would >recommend using those branches rather than -stable. > > > >>I don't think there should be much room for error in the -STABLE branch; >>too much is riding on it. Four hours of troubleshooting an apache server >>which was down for the count. What is it they say about time being money? >> >> >> > >Again, don't go with -stable then. The security branch is moderated by >the security officer, and thus all changes going into it need to be >justified. > >Joe > > > >>Anyway, enough of me flaming, I'm just a little surprised, is all. >> >>I meant to send the first reply to the list, sorry. >> >>-- >>// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- // >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc > > Didn't this used to be the case for -STABLE itself? I've seen major design shifts happen in -STABLE, but never programmer error, as has been the case lately. Is there a new way of thinking with respect to -STABLE? Brad -- // -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- // 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?3D49FB0B.1050507>