From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Feb 3 07:07:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA20249 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 07:07:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from easeway.com (ns1.easeway.com [209.69.71.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA20239 for ; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 07:07:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwlucas@easeway.com) Received: (from mwlucas@localhost) by easeway.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id JAA03089 for stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:47:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902031447.JAA03089@easeway.com> Subject: -stable too early? (was re: Kernel panic with recent RELENG_3) To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:47:38 -0500 (EST) From: mwlucas@exceptionet.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (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 ----- Forwarded message from John Saunders ----- [detailed problem description deleted I think the -stable tag went on way to early. ---end forwarded message--- Since I've heard this sentiment repeated several times on the various FreeBSD lists, I wanted to comment on this. >From http://www.freebsd.org/releases/2.2.5R/announce.html "Those folks who are still running 2.1.x and wish to upgrade to 2.2 technology are now encouraged to do so as 2.2.5 has reached an equivalent level of stability in all of our tests." 2.2 went -stable in (IIRC) May 1997. 2.2.5 came out in Oct 1997. That's five or six months between the -stable tag and solid stability. I won't consider 3.0-stable to be as reliable as 2.2.-stable until I see a similar notice. The -stable tag isn't a guarantee of reliability. It's equivalent to the developers saying, "We won't *deliberately* destroy your system." Some people (like John above) need 3.0-stable for new features, such as SMP. Speaking as a foolishly early adapter of 2.2, however, we can't expect perfect solidity out of 3.0. And, it seems to me, the gulf between 2.1 and 2.2 is much smaller than the yawning chasm between 2.2 and 3. All my production machines are 2.2-stable, and will stay that way until the release coordinator is happy enough with 3-stable to issue a notice like the one above. Regards, Michael PS: Of course, if you want to upgrade simply to be cool, that's another matter worth investing large amounts of time on. But coolness has its price. ;) -- Michael Lucas | Exceptionet, Inc. | www.exceptionet.com "Exceptional Networking" | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message