On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > On Tuesday, 8. February 2005 14:02, Mipam wrote: > > > Okay clear, but the fact that it's in 5-stable suggests the it's stable to > > use, else why would it be in 5-stable. > > The changes that have been merged to stable have been tested for some time in > 6-CURRENT, so they're not completely experimental, yes. > > > Maybe i'm completly wrong in this interpretation? > > I'm not sure what your interpretation is. If you go by your own definition > (what's in -stable should be safe to use), why do you ask at all? In any > case, the ULE MFC commits are only a few days old, so there's naturally not > much feedback available, good or bad. If you want to play it safe, wait a > week or a month and monitor this lists for complaints before trying it > yourself.
Well i asked to see whether my interpretation was right and so it appears i am not right so i'll follow your advice and wait some before enabling it on some crucial machines here. I will enable it today on a less crucial machine though. :-) I though what's in -stable should be safe to use, but i wasn't sure this is the right understanding of 5-stable. Bye, Mipam. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
