Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 16:58:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce M. Walter" <walter@fortean.com> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: *HEADS UP* Correction to previous postings. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980309163546.17816B-100000@aries.fortean.com> In-Reply-To: <199803091924.OAA01358@eyelab.psy.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Gary Schrock wrote: > This is making me very concerned. We get about 3 hours warning on this, > and are told that for the time being as long as you update mount you > shouldn't have problems. Then later we get corrections to who this change > really affects. How well tested is this change? How do I *know* I'm not > going to have problems because something might have been missed? For that > matter, why did this need to be put in freebsd-STABLE instead of current? > To me it makes more sense to have put it there, because at least there one > expects changes that might break things. I don't do this too often, but I'm just getting too much activity from the -STABLE list ;) Tracking -STABLE is a responsibility folks! That's the bottom line. I use FreeBSD in a good number of applications, some mission critical and I simply don't see what the problem is here. It sure is a *privilege* to be able to track a working snapshot, but it's just as sure not *necessary* to track it. Folks go way out of their way here to maintain not only releases and snapshots, but up-to-the-minute sources as well. It's up to you to decide which fits your purposes. I'm fairly sure if this is going into -STABLE it's been beaten like a dead horse somewhere... Most likely in -CURRENT. And if it's a pretty big deal (and it is) I'm sure no-one would stick their necks out unless it was extremely desirable for 2.2.6. On the FreeBSD highway, -STABLE is one of the middle lanes. Slower traffic should keep right... ie: -RELEASE (in the US that is :) > I also find the attitude about people who have to do remote updates a bit > disconcerting. Some of us have no choice. I'm in the same boat here, too. Again, that machine does *NOT* track -STABLE. It runs -STABLE but only after I'm damn well sure I won't be driving 45 minutes to go and reboot it. - Bruce ======================================================================== || Bruce M. Walter || 107 Timber Hollow Court #335 || || Senior Network Consultant || Chapel Hill, NC 27514 || || Fortean Technologies, Inc. || Tel: 919-967-4766 || || Information Technology Consultants || Fax: 919-967-4395 || ======================================================================== || BSD Unix -- It's not just a job, it's a way of life! || ======================================================================== 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.980309163546.17816B-100000>