From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 22 16:38:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B2116A407 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:38:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from helge.oldach@atosorigin.com) Received: from miram.origin-it.net (mail.de.atosorigin.com [194.8.96.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4CC13C428 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:38:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from helge.oldach@atosorigin.com) Received: from markab.hbg.de.int.atosorigin.com (avior.origin-it.net [213.70.176.177]) by miram.origin-it.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/hmo020206) with ESMTP id kBMG9hhm007841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from helge.oldach@atosorigin.com) Received: from DEHHX001.deuser.de.intra (dehhx001.hbg.de.int.atosorigin.com [161.90.164.119]) by markab.hbg.de.int.atosorigin.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/hmo020206) with ESMTP id kBMG9gP5007224; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from helge.oldach@atosorigin.com) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:09:40 +0100 Message-ID: <39AFDF50473FED469B15B6DFF2262F7A0273C975@DEHHX001.deuser.de.intra> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support Thread-Index: Accl0c2y/VUFVrHYTKO5njEyOk7bhwAD+prw From: To: , , Cc: Subject: RE: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:38:55 -0000 Pete French <> wrote on Friday, December 22, 2006 2:44 PM: >> Because everybody knows that odd numbered releases aren't stable. >=20 > I've been 20 years in electronics & comouting and thats the first > time I have ever heard anyone say that! Steer clear of '.0' releases > is well known, but suspecting something just because of the odd or > evenness of it's numbering scheme seems like pure superstition. The odd/even rule is just over-generalization, derived from the Linux = kernel numbering scheme. Personally, I've been upgrading lots of servers from 4-STABLE to = 5-STABLE to 6-STABLE without trouble. Yes, it is some amount of work = (particularly if you want UFS2 benefits and thus have to newfs all = filesystemes), but it is absolutely doable and certainly not a killer = job. Of course upgrading hundreds, even thousands of remote servers is a = different task. But then you want professional support anyway... Frankly, I can't follow the argument that 6.x is "unstable". After all, = it's named 6-STABLE for a reason. I'd say from experience that the = reason is perfectly valid. Actually I have two older servers that got = "just stuck" every few weeks with 4-STABLE and 5-STABLE and called for a = hard reboot -- these two have been rock solid ever since they were = upgraded to 6-STABLE. Greets, Helge