Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:11:17 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: Brad Laue <brad@brad-x.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: glib12 port build failure in -stable (update) Message-ID: <20020802041116.GA7774@hollin.btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <20020801231558.P87489-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <3D49F8B6.4050204@brad-x.com> <20020801231558.P87489-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 11:18:56PM -0400, 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 Um, the previous poster makes a very good point that you are totally blowing off. The branches marked -STABLE are supposed to be *STABLE*. That means only well tested and low risk checkins. Flaming people and directing them to the security branches only perpetuates the problem. The problem being, of course, the percieved lack of quality control in the STABLE branch. Scott 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?20020802041116.GA7774>