Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:07:25 +1200 From: Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! Message-ID: <4504C4DD.5020902@paradise.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <20060911001117.GA44739@FS.denninger.net> References: <20060910183958.GA35701@FS.denninger.net> <00c301c6d50d$751ffe80$0a0aa8c0@rivendell> <20060911001117.GA44739@FS.denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > No, I would like -STABLE to be treated as what it is claimed to be - BETA > code, not ALPHA code. > > There's a huge difference between the two, and MFCing something back to > -STABLE without testing the <BASIC> functionality of the module you're working > with first does not fit the BETA model (it DOES fit the Alpha model.) > > This is coming from someone who has run FreeBSD in a production environment > for basically 10 years, and has even sometimes used -CURRENT during that time > (with full knowledge that running THAT is, indeed, ALPHA code!) > > I guess part of the problem is not enough of us running -CURRENT, so bugs can slip through into -STABLE via MFC (I know I'm guilty here - 2 boxes running -STABLE, none on -CURRENT....) Cheers Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4504C4DD.5020902>