Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:55:10 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@freebsd.org> To: lamont@scriptkiddie.org Cc: a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <20010721135510Y.jkh@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20010721111339.B75328-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> References: <20010721182504.L857-100000@nomad.consult-meyers.com> <20010721111339.B75328-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Very well said. This should be added to the handbook. :) From: Lamont Granquist <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:27:01 -0700 (PDT) > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: > > Having followed the postings here for a few weeks it seems, at > > least occasionally, that "stable" appears to be a bit less than > > "stable". > > You are doing a CVS checkout of a source tree that is getting updates > on a daily basis. If you have ever done this in a development environment > before, you should know that absolute 100% stability in any such an > environment is never, ever going to happen. > > If you want the latest -stable sources which *are* stable, then you > really need to checkout sources on a fresh machine, build your > distribution and spend a few days regression testing the features of the > OS which are important to you. You should then roll out the build to > your staging platform and give it at least a week or two. Following that > you should put it in the load balancing rotation on your production site, > and then gradually phase it in as you gain more confidence. > > Which, of course, you should be doing anyway. > > If you want better stability, then checkout the actual 4.x releases with > the security fixes. Those have actually been frozen and then bugfixed for > stability. They should be better. > > Why is this so difficult for people to understand? *ANY* time you are > checking out the head of a development branch (even one where developers > are supposedly being "more careful") then you should expect to > occasionally see problems. People will break the build. People will have > insufficiently tested their code and subsystems will break. I guarantee > you that none of the FBSD developers have a sufficient testing matrix to > *ensure* that the changes which are checked into the top of the tree will > run on every platform out there (consider for a moment just how big the > x86 testing matrix is). I'm pretty damned impressed that -stable works as > well as it does (kudos for the developers). > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message 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?20010721135510Y.jkh>