Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:30:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Stephen D. Spencer" <bsd-stable@boneyard.lawrence.ks.us> To: Pete Fritchman <petef@databits.net> Cc: Juha Saarinen <juha@saarinen.org>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10106120316500.92846-100000@madeline.boneyard.lawrence.ks.us> In-Reply-To: <20010611190443.B70538@databits.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Pete Fritchman wrote:
> Perhaps the handbook should be updated then. If you want maximum
> "stability", you should track -STABLE. But not blindly.. don't cvsup to
> the latest code and {build,install}world on all your production machines
> without catching up on the mailing list.
I was always under the impression that thoroughly testing a new
installation (relative to whatever functionality the production server
provides) was rather self-evident. I would seriously question the
judgement of any admin that would do otherwise. Hardware is cheap
and plentiful enough that this sort of thing cannot realistically be
considered unrealistic!
Having an extra Intel (or even Alpha) system available for testing
is (imho) not terribly analogous to the idea of having an $X,000
Cisco router sitting on the table.
It really isn't fair to point at open source OS projects in regards to
the amount of care that should be taken upgrading production systems.
Having tracked IRIX and Solaris, gratuitous installation of available
patches are just as likely (or more) to hammer a production systems.
Stephen Spencer |
| "Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey,
| if it don't look like mutton again tomarrer"
| -Bert
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.4.10.10106120316500.92846-100000>