mipam at ibb.net
Tue Feb 8 05:35:22 PST 2005
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
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.
More information about the freebsd-stable