From owner-freebsd-stable  Sat Mar  8 15:31:57 2003
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 D7EA937B404
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat,  8 Mar 2003 15:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobile.hub.org (u173n136.eastlink.ca [24.224.173.136])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C672B43FCB
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat,  8 Mar 2003 15:31:54 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from scrappy@hub.org)
Received: by mobile.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 248ED3F54; Sat,  8 Mar 2003 19:31:53 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mobile.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1943B3F51; Sat,  8 Mar 2003 19:31:53 -0400 (AST)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:31:52 -0400 (AST)
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
X-X-Sender: scrappy@localhost
To: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com>
Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: "leak" in softupdates?
In-Reply-To: <3E6A7ADB.8020600@tenebras.com>
Message-ID: <20030308192912.I58710@localhost>
References: <20030305204526.T38115@hub.org> <20030307090033.GA61037@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
 <20030307101718.GA1908@kevad.internal> <3E68B9B3.9030509@tenebras.com>
 <xzpisuvp0vu.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3E68E839.1080009@tenebras.com>
 <xzpd6l1pj23.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3E6A7ADB.8020600@tenebras.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Michael Sierchio wrote:

> Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > No, but I know for a fact that there are bugs in the 4.7 security
> > branch that have been fixed in -STABLE.
>
> No argument on that point, but PRERELEASE versions have, in my
> experience, tended to break things that previously worked.  But
> that's just since 2.2.2 or so.

Its happened ... and I get the server rebooted onto kernel.old, put in a
bug report, and try again when I see a commit message go through cvs-all
that appears to pertain to the bug ... or someone provides me with a patch
to try if I'm the only one experiencing it ...

How do you think PRERELEASE gets tested? :)  How do you think that -STABLE
stays relatively stable?

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message