From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 7 17: 8:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freeway.dcfinc.com (cx74889-a.phnx3.az.home.com [24.1.193.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AAC14BC3 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:08:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from chad@freeway.dcfinc.com) Received: (from chad@localhost) by freeway.dcfinc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA23073; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:07:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chad) From: "Chad R. Larson" Message-Id: <199912080107.SAA23073@freeway.dcfinc.com> Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? In-Reply-To: from Steve O'Hara-Smith at "Dec 7, 99 12:56:33 pm" To: steve@pooh.elsevier.nl (Steve O'Hara-Smith) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:07:25 -0700 (MST) Cc: morten@seeberg.dk, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: chad@DCFinc.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL40 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG As I recall, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > This is an interesting topic in it's own right. There is a fairly > large body of opinion that the right way to treat a production system > is never to upgrade it at all, rather to periodically replace it with > a well tested replacement using later software. The best way, if you can afford the time and hardware. > Another view is to track the release stream before -stable (right now > that would be 2.x) which continues to get major bug fixes and security > fixes for quite a long time after it stops getting features. The one I use. Using CVSup to fetch RELENG_2_2 gets you what is (IMHO) a wonderfully stable, high performance system. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.net DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message