From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 18:41:46 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 3A9BC106566C for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:41:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0CE8FC12; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:41:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4848336B.60907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:41:47 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schmehl References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <200806051023.56065.jhb@freebsd.org> <1212684781.10665.81.camel@localhost> <8A3638B8BF777C9DF4AB354A@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <8A3638B8BF777C9DF4AB354A@utd65257.utdallas.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 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: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:41:46 -0000 Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On Thursday, June 05, 2008 17:53:01 +0100 Tom Evans > wrote: >> >> I think that, especially with open source products, there is a large >> emphasis on testing in your own environments, and choosing the 'correct' >> version of a particular software package is important. For example, at >> $JOB, we had a lot of servers running 6.1 as it was an extended lifetime >> release, so no point jumping to 6.2, instead we waited for 6.3 to pass >> our integration testing. >> > > Not everyone has those kinds of resources. The domain I'm referring to > is a hobby site, run by a husband and wife. They started with shared > hosting and moved to a dedicated box when I volunteered to help with the > backend work. For several years we ran one server hosting dns, imaps, > smtps, mail lists and websites. > > Yes, it's not ideal, but when you have zero income you do what you can. > Testing like you describe is out of the question. > > We now have the embarrassment of riches of two servers; one for web and > the old one for the rest. The old box is still running 5.4 SECURITY. > The new box is running 6.1. I'd *like* to upgrade both boxes, and the > older box can go offline comfortably for several hours without anyone > but me noticing. But if the web box goes down for 30 seconds, queries > from the users start pouring in. Come now, even some of the biggest websites on the planet have scheduled downtime :) Kris