ULE status

[Oliver Fromme]

Mipam <mipam at ibb.net> 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.
 > > > Maybe i'm completly wrong in this interpretation?
 > [...]
 > I though what's in -stable should be safe to use, but i wasn't sure this 
 > is the right understanding of 5-stable.

No.  There have always been things in -stable which were
not "stable" itself.  Of course, they were not enabled by
default, and the documentation contained the appropriate
warnings.  There are always things which could perfectly
be used to shot yourself in the foot.

One of the well-known examples would be NULLFS and UNIONFS
which were part of 3-stable and 4-stable all the time, but
they weren't really stable in general (except under very
limited, controlled conditions).

(Note that I'm not saying anything about the stability of
ULE.)

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"If you aim the gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it's
UNIX's job to ensure reliable delivery of the bullet to
where you aimed the gun (in this case, Mr. Foot)."
        -- Terry Lambert, FreeBSD-hackers mailing list.