Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:31:47 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ok, are all the panics fixed now? Message-ID: <20030828000422.H54470@news1.macomnet.ru> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8@popserver.sfu.ca> References: <20030827133126.D4269@odysseus.silby.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030826212312.07923ea0@209.112.4.2> <20030827133126.D4269@odysseus.silby.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20030827124821.02d392b8@popserver.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 12:56-0700, Colin Percival wrote: > At 23:42 27/08/2003 +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > >On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 13:34-0500, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > So, I think we'll just include a warning with 4.9: > > > > > > WARNING! > > > > > > Do not attempt to stress a FreeBSD 4.9 machine if you: > > > >or "Upgrade your FreeBSD to RedHat". > > s/RedHat/FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE/ No way: SA 03:08 - 03:11, http://www.freebsd.org/security/#adv > >It's simple: we need to backout all these untested MFCs. > > Or fix the bugs. I don't know anything about the code in question, but > now that people are getting repeatable panics, I assume that tracking down > the bugs will be rather easier. > > There was a time when STABLE absolutely needed to be stable, but I'm not > sure that's necessarily the case any more; now that we have all the > release/security branches, I think it's safe to say that most systems which > need absolute stability aren't going to be running STABLE. We do have -CURRENT already. Look, believe you or not but there are people including me who trying to run -STABLE in a production environment. No sense in tracking RELENG_4_8 because it has some serious bugs, kern/53717 and kern/50803 f.e. No sense in 4.9-REL in such bad quality too. -- Maxim Konovalov, maxim@macomnet.ru, maxim@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030828000422.H54470>