On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when
changes are MFC'd into production branches of the code. This kind of
thing is expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.
How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this
once it was put in? All of 30 seconds?
In this case, I don't know ... but I *do* know that I do hit a fair
number of "bugs" that a simple 30 second test won't uncover ... a
production box *can* and *will* tend to hit bugs that a test box won't,
just because of the randomness of what is running on it ... trust me, I've
had my share of headaches over the years, but it doesn't (and won't) deter
me from running -STABLE, for the simple fact that if I don't, there is a
good chance that those bugs that I do get "lucky" enough to hit won't get
hit by anyone else and *someone* had to get it ;)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
