Astrodog wrote: > Something that, in my opinion, may have been missed in all of this, > It hasn't been missed. It's been said over and over again. > Why, exactly, do you want to run -CURRENT in production? If you had actually read this thread, you'd know the answer to that. > Running -CURRENT is quite a bit more work than running -STABLE. The OP has stated repeatedly that he knows this, and is willing to do the work as long as time is available. > Many of the > problems that may exist in -CURRENT will be induced by specific > types of load. Race conditions, Lock Order Reversal, and certain > driver issues in many cases, only appear under particularly heavy > loads, or particular types of load. What this means, simply, is > that when you test the next version of -CURRENT you'd like to run, > there's quite a bit of testing you'll have to do. And this exact testing is what we need from the user base if we're going to make this thing work. It's ok if _you_ don't want to do it (really, it is), but please stop trying to discourage someone who has said repeatedly that he knows what he is signing up for. > Along side this > type of problem, is the issue of security. If you are running > -CURRENT as of 2 weeks ago, and a security vulnerability is > discovered, in some cases, you will be compelled to upgrade to the > latest -CURRENT, even if it has known stability problems, or > performance/functionality regression. Um, that's just bollocks. If the only way you know how to update a system is buildworld, you really should not be giving someone advice on system administration. Enough is enough already. This thread pole-vaulted past its useful lifetime ages ago, let's let it die. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protectionReceived on Sun Dec 17 2006 - 20:21:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC