From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 19:21:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3EE106567B; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from mail.netconsonance.com (mail.netconsonance.com [198.207.204.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C498FC2C; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from [10.66.240.106] (public-wireless.sv.svcolo.com [64.13.135.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netconsonance.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m5PJLQT7078362; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:21:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netconsonance.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.898 tagged_above=-999 required=3.5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44, AWL=0.542] Message-Id: <15C7C9E0-7F99-4FAC-941A-9BBCC3600E55@netconsonance.com> From: Jo Rhett To: Peter Wemm In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:21:21 -0700 References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> <200806231051.03685.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Cc: FreeBSD Stable , John Baldwin Subject: Re: tracking -stable in the enterprise 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:29 -0000 On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > Correct. We roll our own build snapshots periodically, but we also > keep a pretty careful eye on what's going on in the -stable branches. Okay, that makes sense to me ;-) >> I mean, I guess Yahoo has enough resources to literally run every >> commit to >> -stable through a full test cycle and push it out to every machine, >> but my > No. Why on earth would we do that? if we wanted to cause ourselves > that much pain for no good reason, we'd go get a pencil and stab > ourselves in the eye. Yes, we are definitely on the same page. Thanks for the clarification ;-) > We don't upgrade machines that have been deployed unless there is a > good reason to. Do you deploy machines for longer than 1 year? How do you deal with security patches in the longer term? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness