Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:07:25 -0700 (MST) From: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> To: steve@pooh.elsevier.nl (Steve O'Hara-Smith) Cc: morten@seeberg.dk, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <199912080107.SAA23073@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.991207125633.steve@pooh.elsevier.nl> from Steve O'Hara-Smith at "Dec 7, 99 12:56:33 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912080107.SAA23073>