Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:52:07 +1000 From: Tony Maher <anthony.maher@uts.edu.au> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <4508DFF7.1060808@uts.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <20060914012316.V1031@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060909173813.GA1388@FS.denninger.net> <45065C67.6040503@cs.tu-berlin.de> <20060912141547.GA11713@FS.denninger.net> <4506D884.4050605@scls.lib.wi.us> <20060912171617.556a43cc.steve@sohara.org> <20060914012316.V1031@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0500 >> Greg Barniskis <nalists@scls.lib.wi.us> wrote: >> >>> If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your >>> system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or >>> later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production >>> systems. >> >> >> I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines >> without ever having any trouble. > > > Ditto ... in fact, I do that on my desktop and have yet to hit a problem > ... -STABLE *is* generally very stable ... > > Stupid question here ... if -STABLE shouldn't be tracked, who exactly is > doing testing on it? Those doing "the work" on -CURRENT, I would > imagine, are tracking -CURRENT, and testing the code put in there for > bugs ... when deemed 'bug free', then its being MFCd to -STABLE, but if > those of us that *are* tracking -STABLE stop'd tracking it ... who would > be testing it? It is not that you should not track it but where you should be tracking/testing it. Not on critical production servers would be a good start ;-) -- tonym
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4508DFF7.1060808>