Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:04:41 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports Message-ID: <CADLo83_8Eu10_4S_7vuUoQUUEJ5eku9eq25HkT0mfUruWMccgg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201202261832.17793.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <201202240835.32041.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> <CADLo83_H_v4mRhwptyoL7SqA7N8Fy-wg=8EuCu5DzAYRMU8FGA@mail.gmail.com> <201202261832.17793.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26 February 2012 11:32, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> w= rote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 26 February 2012 18:16:53 Chris Rees wrote: >> On 24 February 2012 01:35, Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com= > wrote: >> > >> > On Friday 24 February 2012 01:25:01 Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> >> >> >> This is NOT a troll. >> >> This is NOT a flame. >> >> Do NOT hijack this thread to troll/flame. >> >> >> > allow them some fun too. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now, I find the number of problem reports regarding 9.0-RELEASE alarm= ing >> >> and I'm growing more and more fearful towards it. >> >> >> >> In the current state of things, I have *absolutely* no wish to run it= in >> >> production :( >> >> >> > Did you read deeply into the strategy behind the releases? If I rememb= er right, the odd numbers are a little bit more experimental compared to th= e even numbers. For myself, I try to stick with even numbers whenever possi= ble. If I install FreeBSD on a serious machine, I never use x.0. It must be= at least x.1. >> >> There's no such odd/even number policy with FreeBSD-- I think you're >> thinking of another OS ;) >> > maybe something got stuck in my head with the move from 4 to 5. 4 to 5 was SMP-related, and when the Project decided to move to time-based rather than feature-based releases -- pure coincidence that 5 was odd. > How easy was the move to 6 then? _Just_ before my time I'm afraid ;) > Independent of this, it is still true that there is always the older bran= ch available when a new one opens at .0. > >> You're right that x.0 is slightly more experimental in general though >> (by its nature, it must be). > > And has nothing to do with FreeBSD as such. > Exactly :) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_8Eu10_4S_7vuUoQUUEJ5eku9eq25HkT0mfUruWMccgg>