From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 9 22:19:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 45B1716A412 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:19:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B8643D46 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:19:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63EF6291AFE; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 19:19:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59086-02; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 22:19:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-137-86-60.eastlink.ca [24.137.86.60]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48136290C74; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:04:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1027) id ADA7533DD5; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:04:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A918733C4F; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:04:40 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:04:40 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: freebsd@ganymede.hub.org To: Karl Denninger In-Reply-To: <20060909182831.GA32004@FS.denninger.net> Message-ID: <20060909160211.U10669@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20060909173813.GA1388@FS.denninger.net> <200609092023.16454.max@love2party.net> <20060909182831.GA32004@FS.denninger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:19:56 -0000 On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote: > Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right? > > C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when > changes are MFC'd into production branches of the code. This kind of > thing is expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE. > > How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this > once it was put in? All of 30 seconds? In this case, I don't know ... but I *do* know that I do hit a fair number of "bugs" that a simple 30 second test won't uncover ... a production box *can* and *will* tend to hit bugs that a test box won't, just because of the randomness of what is running on it ... trust me, I've had my share of headaches over the years, but it doesn't (and won't) deter me from running -STABLE, for the simple fact that if I don't, there is a good chance that those bugs that I do get "lucky" enough to hit won't get hit by anyone else and *someone* had to get it ;) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664