Greg Byshenk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:08:27PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
rihad wrote:
How risky is it to start using 7.0-BETA1 in production, with the
intention of upgrading to release as soon as possible? Thanks.
We've used 7-CURRENT since January on a couple of production boxes and
had very few disasters, well, none, but a couple of issues.
"Risky" is a relative term really, but if you ask me I'd say the "risk"
is rather low.
My question was more a theoretical one: it's called BETA for some
reason, otherwise it'd still be in HEAD. To me BETA means that no major
architectural changes are expected in it any more, no?
But: TEST FIRST!
I concur with Per. I've been running 7-CURRENT on a couple of "production"
machines for some months, without any serious problems -- but these are not
mission-critical machines.
Our machine-to-be is quite mission-critical... But if I start with the
latest 6.x release, it would be more difficult to migrate to 7.0 when it
comes out than if I start with 7.0-BETA?. I've known people running
4-STABLE or 5-STABLE branches on mission-critical machines, without even
bothering to upgrade, but I think they're stress-testing their luck ;-)
So I don't want to join their camp, that's why I asked for advice ;-)
Again it's named BETA for a reason, so it could be less intrusive than
STABLE?..
I will definitely start with beta if it reaches BETA2 in a week or two -
the time I got ;-) Thanks for advice.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
