Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:30:57 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: H <hm@hm.net.br>, Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports Message-ID: <201202261630.57372.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <4F49F375.5000002@hm.net.br> References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <op.v95ejibz34t2sn@tech304> <4F49F375.5000002@hm.net.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sunday 26 February 2012 15:55:17 H wrote: > Mark Felder wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:25:01 -0600, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> > > wrote: > > that is all understandable but the point should not be forgotten ... > > I mean certainly -RELEASE __is__ the production release there is not the production release here. There are always at least two. > > so, few testers is no excuse, still more when that is a known issue, > so a bigger time frame would be the solution until the var > _seemed_stable change into _is_stable Stable has here a different meaning. It just means that nothing will change at the interfaces anymore as long the error is not hidden there. 5.2 and 5.21 was such an example if I remember right. > > of course, that is not always so easy but also think of side effects, > few_testers could change into still_less when FreeBSD prove to have > unstable releases No matter what effort you put into testing, you can never achieve the robustness of an older release. I still have 7.4 running on one. This can stay until next year. So, why do you want to run the latest release on an important machine? You can, but you are not in a position to complain then. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202261630.57372.erichfreebsdlist>