Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:22:51 -0400
From:      Brad Laue <brad@brad-x.com>
To:        Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: glib12 port build failure in -stable (update)
Message-ID:  <3D49FB0B.1050507@brad-x.com>
References:  <20020801231558.P87489-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:

>>I hate to go on a rant, but -STABLE broke three times yesterday, too -
>>this is -STABLE, why is this happening all of a sudden? I'm supposed to
>>be able to put implicit faith in it!
>>    
>>
>
>Well, the security branch (RELENG_4_6 for example) is more "stable" and
>changes much less frequently.  For any production server, I would
>recommend using those branches rather than -stable.
>
>  
>
>>I don't think there should be much room for error in the -STABLE branch;
>>too much is riding on it. Four hours of troubleshooting an apache server
>>which was down for the count. What is it they say about time being money?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Again, don't go with -stable then.  The security branch is moderated by
>the security officer, and thus all changes going into it need to be
>justified.
>
>Joe
>
>  
>
>>Anyway, enough of me flaming, I'm just a little surprised, is all.
>>
>>I meant to send the first reply to the list, sorry.
>>
>>--
>>// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
>  
>
Didn't this used to be the case for -STABLE itself? I've seen major 
design shifts happen in -STABLE, but never programmer error, as has been 
the case lately.

Is there a new way of thinking with respect to -STABLE?  

Brad

-- 
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ -- //




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?3D49FB0B.1050507>