Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 11:08:41 +0000 From: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Binary update to -STABLE? And if so, what do I get? Message-ID: <1656e7f5-ef76-55d8-f46c-416223c5f975@ingresso.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <CACLnyCJByvrahyk1MBdckRxpXw3-GVXDM5WMMTUUmaJRffdqmg@mail.gmail.com> References: <80937c57-7757-3c70-5198-4da12c4f23d9@denninger.net> <20190213134939.GO2748@home.opsec.eu> <29563d3e-608d-591e-89bb-bf428b52bdc8@denninger.net> <CACLnyCJByvrahyk1MBdckRxpXw3-GVXDM5WMMTUUmaJRffdqmg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14/02/2019 01:43, Jason Tubnor wrote: > I also have hit this IPv6 issue (I thought I was going crazy until I worked > it out) and other iflib issues in 12.0, which have been fixed in -STABLE > that really should be patched in 12.0 or bring forward an early 12.1 > release. For our use case, 12.0 is just too buggy for production at this > rate and we won't touch it, which is a shame because there is a lot of good > work in there that we would like to use but it is trumped by the breakages. Any reason behind not running STBLE out of interest ? Yes, 12 has been buggy with regards to networking, but these things get fixed very fast and I now have all my machines on the lattest STABLE in production, as of yesterday. -pete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1656e7f5-ef76-55d8-f46c-416223c5f975>