On Sunday 08 June 2008 07:49:35 am Andy Kosela wrote:
[ much snippage.. ]
> there is time to rethink FreeBSD overall strategy and goals. Major
> companies using FreeBSD in their infrastructure like Yahoo! or Juniper
> Networks would definetly benefit from such moves focused on long term
> support
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote:
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
...
Ah, another thing,
I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for
Gary Palmer wrote:
I think a large part of the shortcomings of the ports infrastructure when
it comes to security releases could be mitigated if there was a rapid
building and availability of packages on FTP mirrors to prevent everyone
from doing "portupgrade -P" and then having to wait for the
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote:
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
...
Ah, another thing,
I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for quite long.
I've test
Just my 5cents (some thoughts),
I fully agree with the lines below.
As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
than making releases rock solid stable.
As mentioned in reply posts the 3 branches 6.X 7.X and 8.X takes too
many resources and
is very hard to support.
I, pe
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
>> Like I said, you have to define what you mean by "stable" and
>> "unstable" before the discussion can continue.
>>
>> "stable" can mean many things to many people. You talk abou
On 7 Jun 2008, at 22:54, Max Laier wrote:
Here is a cluebat for you:
Here is another one:
Currently 176 messages, posted by 51 unique participants (25 % by Jo
himself)
Given the fact that at least these 51 persons are actually reading all
the mails, and taking some 5 minutes for it you
* Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080607 14:37] wrote:
>
> Mike, could you do me a favor and provide me with a set of words that
> will make what I am trying to say on this topic clear? I keep saying
> the same thing over and over again and nobody is hearing me, so could
> you perhaps help me
Y'know, I've been sort of skimming this thread, and I think a
lot of this time could be better spent by just looking at the
PRs and giving the original poster tips and encouragement for
providing the information needed by FreeBSD to solve his problems.
Really...
-Alfred
* Mike Edenfield <[EMAIL
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Freddie Cash wrote:
Define the terms "stable" and "unstable", how you measure said "stability"
and "instability", and what you are comparing them against.
This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two
common trends in computing (rapid development
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Andy Kosela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/8/08, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>>On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
>>> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
>>> version? Why does
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 06:55:06AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2008-Jun-08 17:49:20 +0200, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >and it is now working perfectly well without any trouble. The only
> >"gotcha" is the slowness of X problem when compiling, but i live with that.
>
> Have you t
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Andy Kosela wrote:
Define the terms "stable" and "unstable", how you measure said "stability"
and "instability", and what you are comparing them against.
This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two
common trends in computing (rapid development
On 2008-Jun-08 17:49:20 +0200, Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>and it is now working perfectly well without any trouble. The only
>"gotcha" is the slowness of X problem when compiling, but i live with that.
Have you tried SCHED_ULE? In my experience, it does a better job of
scdeduling th
--On June 8, 2008 5:49:20 PM +0200 Michel Talon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think it is very unreasonable for end users to ask maintaining, e.g.
6.2 ad vitam eternam. The real stable branch is now 7.* and diverting
effort to polish the 6.* is a waste of time. People wanting a very
stable system
--On June 8, 2008 1:49:35 PM +0200 Andy Kosela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
FreeBSD has always been known for its legendary stability and mature
code base which is why many commercial companies depend on it every
day. "The anomaly" as someone said of long term support for 4.x releases
only helped
On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 12:18:22PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Patrick M. Hausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I have never ever had a single problem caused by running RELENG_N.
> >We changed that only because as the number of machines increases
> >it pays to
> Zoran Kolic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This thread solves nothing. Two positions are clear.
> Also, I recall harder words on openbsd list, with a
> lot shorter thread. The whole thing is finished and
> should stay in that state. All next posts could be
> written, but no need to be sent.
Aha,
Andy Kosela wrote:
... a really beutiful and elaborate post on the subject ...
However, being an ordinary user with few machines running FreeBSD, i
have seen on my limited sample that 2 machines worked better with 6.3
than 6.2 (two old Athlon machines, which work perfectly OK in fact) and
one wor
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Chris Marlatt wrote:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
The project is doing what it can with what people are contributing. If
What if it can accomplish the same or more by simply reorganizing what it's
already doing? I completely understand the apparent situation - if you look
at it
On 6/8/08, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
>> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
>> version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
>> stable version and force pe
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> >>This is why EoLing 6.2 and forcing people to upgrade to a release
> >>with lots of known issues is a problem.
> >People who have issues with RELENG_6_3 should upgrade to RELENG_6
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick M. Hausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have never ever had a single problem caused by running RELENG_N.
We changed that only because as the number of machines increases
it pays to run the same software on all of them, and "RELEASE"
provides a convenient (!)
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
>> Upgrading your systems to 6.3 takes _precisely_ the same amount
>> of work as upgrading to "6-STABLE as of today 00:00 GMT".
>
> No, it doesn't. You can get to 6.3 with free
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
> version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
> stable version and force people to choose betw
This thread solves nothing. Two positions are clear.
Also, I recall harder words on openbsd list, with a
lot shorter thread. The whole thing is finished and
should stay in that state. All next posts could be
written, but no need to be sent.
Best regards
Zoran
_
--On June 7, 2008 2:41:32 PM +0800 Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2008/6/7 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point. Why should
Jo have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the
conditions already articulated in exis
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent
> > reporting them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving
> > your hands in the air and yelling at people.
> Must you resort to nons
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to see 2 years
> of support for 6.2-RELEASE.
Well, you're getting two years for 6.3.
> 6.2 was (and *is* AFAIK) the most stable release of FreeBSD since 4.11
> and it came out the door with less than 12 m
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:10PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
...
> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
> version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
> stable version and force
2008/6/8 Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> The OP stated "argh argh sky is falling with 6.3!" but hasn't yet
>> listed PRs which indicate this to be happening.
>> He's offered hardware in a week or two - which is great! - but what
>> irks the deve
2008/6/8 Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If stability is your main concern then you could throw some resources
>> at fixing 6.3 or throw some resources at backporting security fixes to
>> 6.2.
>
> I will apparently be backporting the security fixes myself until 6.4 ships.
And if you do, someone
However, the fixes are not available in a -RELEASE version of the operating
system.
Does freebsd-update not address these?
Brian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To uns
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to accept
the explanation that no matter what yo
At 3:29 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
The fact that we reject your request that we provide further support
for 6.2 does not mean we did not understand the question. It is you
who are not understanding the reply.
At the very least, I phra
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:37 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.
>
> 1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other -RELEASE.
> 2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
> 3. Overall amount of bugs.
> 4. Difference in code base bet
Seriously man, is it really necessary to reply to every single post?
How about you spend some of that time and effort testing 6.3 or 7.0
instead of winging about things which may or may not in fact be any
issue at all, as you have not even bothered to test.
- Original Message -
From: "J
At 1:04 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent reporting
them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving your hands in
the air and yelling at people.
Must you resort to nons
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
The fact that we reject your request that we provide further support
for 6.2 does not mean we did not understand the question. It is you
who are not understanding the reply.
At the very least, I phrased my question badly. Because I asked "w
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
You are in fact saying 6.3-RELEASE should not have been released at
the
time it was. It should have been posponed 'till some open bugs were
solved. I agree with you that a RELEASE is supposed to be more
mature /
stable then a development ver
On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
There is not a single committer that I know of who is convinced
by your argument that we (committers) should sign up for the
additional work of supporting 6.2 for an additional 6 months.
I never asked for that.
That is the answer to your "p
On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
Your concern has been noted and rejected.
My actual questions were never answered.
you are "challenging" others to support 6.2 for you. For free.
No, I never did that. I asked why it was a good idea. And I have
always offered to help
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to
accept the explanation that no matter what you think about t
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Upgrading your systems to 6.3 takes _precisely_ the same amount
of work as upgrading to "6-STABLE as of today 00:00 GMT".
No, it doesn't. You can get to 6.3 with freebsd-update. And you can
stay patched with freebsd-update on a -RELEASE.
Jo Rhett wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > As for re-defining extended support to mean 4 or 5 years instead of
> > just
> > two it's not clear us doing that (except for anomolies like 4.11) is
> > really in your best interests. :-)
>
> 2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to
At 2:37 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
Mike, could you do me a favor and provide me with a set of words
that will make what I am trying to say on this topic clear? I keep
saying the same thing over and over again and nobody is hearing me,
so could you perhaps help me translate this?
The
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
I still think your questions are legitimate.
You won't win the battle however.
Obviously I got a battle, but that wasn't what I wanted. I wanted to
understand the issues involved and from that determine how I might be
able to help.
--
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
Comparing us with, e.g., Solaris, we would not find a lot of
difference
in the support model. Althought they formally provide patches for
Huh? I'm totally not saying that you should be trying to match the
support model of a large corporati
At 2:02 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
This thread was to question the reasoning behind obsoleting 6.2 so
very quickly. It's a policy issue, not a single bug report. It has
more to do with the "X results" column in a PR search than any
single one of the entries.
Some CLARITY:
There is
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:37:11 -0700
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.
>
> 1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other
> -RELEASE. 2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
> 3. Overall amount of bugs.
> 4. Differenc
On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:41 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
As said before, the reason FreeBSD isn't supporting older 6.x releases
anymore is because there's just no manpower to do so.
Which is what I was asking about. I've asked the questions more
specifically since they apparently weren't phrased wel
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
If you're asking why I don't turn a production environment over to
being a freebsd-unstable-testbed, I can't really answer that
question in a way you'd understand (if you were asking that question)
On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:11 AM, Vivek Khera wrote:
If
On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:08 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Three people replied to Jo Rhett's initial email. Here's what they
said, with Jo's own text elided:
Among other things, you time-warped some of my comments into replies
to things people said to the comments themselves. But the most
cr
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
In short, the problem reports that the OP is looking at are not
immediately obvious to someone who doesn't already know what they
are, and he's not doing himself any favors by insisting that
everyone else "already knows" about these problems.
Jo Rhett wrote:
This is why EoLing 6.2 and forcing people to upgrade to a release with
lots of known issues is a problem.
You keep saying this as if it's somehow unusual that 6.3 has a lot of
open bugs. Yet even a cursory look at the PR list (admittedly based
just on the specific drivers you m
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Scott Long wrote:
What is needed prior to talking about loaner systems and test cases is
for you to say, "Hardware XYZ isn't working for me anymore. It used
to
do FOO, and now it does BAR." That's the first step. It's a simple
step, but it's an essential step. S
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I agree that he has made those statements - and those statements may
even be true. When asked to provide details of the bugs or references
to those problems, he has refused. Random, unsubstantiated claims are
hardly evidence of anything.
I didn'
Mark, I'm confused by this message. You direct your message to me,
but quote Kris and Chris and then using those comments attack me. I
think you may have my own comments confused.
Finally, I haven't asked for anything you are attacking me for here.
You are apparently restating what you t
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is
so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered.
On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very
careful consideration and
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
When you do come back, your first message should contain a list of
PRs that you're concerned about, and confirmation (per jhb's
message) that you have the _exact_ hardware that is referred to in
them. If you can't provide that, don't bother.
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
I have no sympathy for anyone who's going to moan about a previous
release
being desupported that isn't willing to put the effort in to make the
issues they are seeing get fixed.
How do you know I haven't? Point of fact, I have. This thr
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is
so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered.
On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very
careful consideration and have been reject
On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I'm pretty sure the only person that's going to matter to is you.
...
This isn't the '80's, and we aren't in grade school. See above on
taking "no" for an answer.
Doug, is this really necessary? Is this kind of response going to help?
Chris,
On Saturday 07 June 2008 21:41:18 Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
> > You are still fail to take to the time to even tell people what these
> > bugs are, no ones a mind reader!
> >
> > People are trying to help you here but all I'm hearing is a child
> > like "I
Jo Rhett wrote:
I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't specifics.
I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here.
Your concerns have been noted. You seem unwilling or unable to accept
the explanation that no matter what you think about the situation, we
don't have the
On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Ken Smith wrote:
As for re-defining extended support to mean 4 or 5 years instead of
just
two it's not clear us doing that (except for anomolies like 4.11) is
really in your best interests. :-)
2 years would be perfectly fine in my mind. I'd love to see 2 years
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Chris Marlatt wrote:
I can certainly relate to a potentially standoff'ish approach that's
been seen recently. It's easy to take people's criticism as
completely negative regardless what is said. To be honest though -
people are using FreeBSD because it's a good pr
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
So he should at least be able to name the relevant PRs.
Or name at least one. Then nobody would complain.
I'm sure somebody would complain ;-) but yeah, valid. Unfortunately
I was on my 3rd day of less than 3 hours sleep and had to leave
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 01:28:21PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> In rereading my quotes I may have not been clear on something. The vast
> majority of these bugs have already been fixed. ("not in a state that needs
> help identifying" was what I said trying to cover both that and known bugs
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
So yes, the way to contribute is to get involved. If you think there's
a real desire to take FreeBSD-6.2 (as an example) and continue
supporting security patches and critical bugfixes, versus the
larger-scale changes which seem to have gone on in /u
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The OP stated "argh argh sky is falling with 6.3!" but hasn't yet
listed PRs which indicate this to be happening.
He's offered hardware in a week or two - which is great! - but what
irks the developers is the large amount of noise and absolutely no
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
There has been nothing of value offered in this thread, and it's
only served to piss off a number of developers who already put huge
amounts of volunteer time into supporting FreeBSD, and who take
pride in the quality of their work.
I'm hone
> I'd said nearly a dozen times that the issues I have aren't
> specifics. I am questioning the overall policy for EoL here. Even if
> it was known to work properly on my hardware the overwhelming amount
> of bugs in 6.3 indicates an unstable release.
No. 6.3 is very stable for us, on multi
Hi, John. Thanks for your update and I'll keep your experience in mind.
As stated in previous messages, I'll open new threads in the
appropriate lists about any specific driver issues (with details) that
I am concerned about. This thread was intended to deal with the
overall policy issue
On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
If you have issues with 6.3, your time would be better spent reporting
them (by which I mean describe them in detail) than waving your
hands in
the air and yelling at people.
Must you resort to nonsense and hyperbole?
I'd said nearly a
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:53:10 -0700
Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a stable
> version and force people to choose between two different unstable
> versions? Is this really the right thing to do?
NO, it's not.
But you can't change that. T
On Jun 5, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
If the exact regression between 6.2 and 6.3 can be tracked down,
great.
If it's in a specific driver, CVS commit logs or cvsweb will come in
handy. Otherwise, if it's some larger piece of code ("ohai i revamped
the intrupt handlar!"), chances
(Top posted because I didn't want to snip what you said)
Bruce, all of what you said below is well known. I understand and
don't have any problem with this. You seem to be trying to address
something I wasn't asking about -- certifications, etc and such. Not
a concern.
The question I r
On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
If its of major concern for you, then allocate some man hours, grab
the /usr/src/sys diffs between RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE and
RELENG_6_3_0_RELEASE.
The others on the list have stated over and over again that they
haven't seen any issues and would li
On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
You are still fail to take to the time to even tell people what these
bugs are, no ones a mind reader!
People are trying to help you here but all I'm hearing is a child like
"It doesn't work fix it", with no willingness to even explain what it
i
On Jun 5, 2008, at 1:39 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-Jun-04 22:22:33 -0700, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And please stop with the loaded language. I'm not asking anyone to
work
for me. I am suggesting that it is perhaps too early to EoL 6.2
because
6.3 isn't ready yet.
So you
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Furthermore, it seems the reaction of developers, that he wasn't being
specific enough are rendered moot by the urls above, which were easily
accessed by me, someone with little knowledge at all of two of the
three issues. So, rather than berating Jo for not producing PRs,
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 12:08:54PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
> >people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
> >more stable than 6.2. I really hav
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 23:37 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> My point still stands. I think the behavior of the developers on the
> lists should be of as high a quality as the work they do on the OS (which,
> as I have stated, is first rate.) Descending to the levels that some have
> (some of whi
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:32PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 2008/6/7 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point. Why should Jo
> > have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the conditions
> > already articulated in exist
2008/6/7 Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not only is this wrong, but it completely misses the point. Why should Jo
> have to upgrade to find out if his servers will fail under the conditions
> already articulated in existing, unresolved PRs that affect hardware that he
> is presently using?
--On June 6, 2008 3:08:25 PM +0200 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...] I reacted in anger because I felt the OP was being savagely
attacked rather than being responded to with professionalism. Later
in the thread some folks got around
--On June 6, 2008 11:53:49 AM +0200 Manfred Usselmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What you are saying sounds like a contradiction to me. On one side it
is just a hobby site and generates no income and on the other hand it
is a critical server with millions of hits and the box can't even go
down f
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:34:01AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
> >>
> >>> Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
> >>> people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
> >>> more stable than 6.2.
>> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
>>> people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
>>> more stable than 6.2. I really haven't gotten any clear impression as
6.3 has been stable for
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 12:08 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
> > people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
> > more stable than 6.2. I really haven't go
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 12:08:54PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
> >people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
> >more stable than 6.2. I really hav
On Jun 4, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
If this is so important to you - contribute to the project and/or hire
a FreeBSD developer.
I've got a strange problem with jails and I've been trying to hire a
freebsd developer, but I can't seem to get anyone to a) call me back.
I got one
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
If you're asking why I don't turn a production environment over to
being a freebsd-unstable-testbed, I can't really answer that
question in a way you'd understand (if you were asking that question)
If you don't have an identical setup to test new
On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Clifton Royston wrote:
Speaking just for myself, I'd love to get a general response from
people who have run servers on both as to whether 6.3 is on average
more stable than 6.2. I really haven't gotten any clear impression as
I'll throw in my "+1" for running 6.
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...] I reacted in anger because I felt the OP was being savagely
> attacked rather than being responded to with professionalism. Later
> in the thread some folks got around to asking which PRs he was
> referring to, but that was after attacking him for h
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:31:44 -0500
Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Thursday, June 05, 2008 17:53:01 +0100 Tom Evans
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that, especially with open source products, there is a large
> > emphasis on testing in your own environments, and c
Paul Schmehl wrote:
I think that's an unfair characterization. He stated that he had
noted numerous bugs in 6.3 (submitted PRs) that he perceived affected
him personally and so he chose not to update to 6.3. He then asked if
6.2 couldn't be extended farther. That seems like a reasonable
que
--On Friday, June 06, 2008 00:19:05 +0200 Miroslav Lachman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Thursday, June 05, 2008 19:10:19 +0200 Pieter de Goeje
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's a really easy way to test this. Build & install a new kernel, but
keep the old kernel ar
--On Friday, June 06, 2008 08:02:44 +1000 Peter Jeremy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2008-Jun-05 10:33:18 -0500, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Thursday, June 05, 2008 18:39:07 +1000 Peter Jeremy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2008-Jun-04 22:22:33 -0700, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECT
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
