ULE status

[Michael Nottebrock]

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.

-- 
   ,_,   | Michael Nottebrock               | lofi at freebsd.org
 (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve     | http://www.freebsd.org
   \u/   | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050208/2e9d892e/attachment.bin