From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 1 21:38:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BF237B400 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shumai.marcuscom.com (rdu57-17-158.nc.rr.com [66.57.17.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B9543E6A for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:38:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcus@marcuscom.com) Received: from shumai.marcuscom.com (localhost.marcuscom.com [127.0.0.1]) by shumai.marcuscom.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g724coVY006121; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:38:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from marcus@marcuscom.com) Received: from localhost (marcus@localhost) by shumai.marcuscom.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g724coBd006118; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:38:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shumai.marcuscom.com: marcus owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:38:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Marcus Clarke To: Scott Long Cc: Brad Laue , Subject: Re: glib12 port build failure in -stable (update) In-Reply-To: <20020802041116.GA7774@hollin.btc.adaptec.com> Message-ID: <20020802003619.O87489-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Scott Long wrote: > 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. I wasn't flaming anyone, nor was I blowing anyone off. Yes, he does make a good point, but history shows that the security branches change a lot less frequently than -stable, and make the best choice for production servers that need to be highly available. Joe > > Scott > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message