On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> wrote: > Russell Coker wrote: > > Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then > > if one doesn't work we can try the other. > > I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea.
I agree that doubling the work is generally a bad idea. If having two versions supported means that neither is supported properly then it makes sense to cut one - in which case I think we should drop 3.4 as it works badly enough for me that I can't imaging 4.0 being worse. But I suspect that leaving 3.4 in it's current state would be a reasonable option, it works well on two out of five systems I've tried it on and it doesn't fail badly on machine three. > > My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and > > hoping that one will work is a good strategy for any given server. > > Do you also hang garlic on the server, to bring good luck? COME ON... > this is computer science here, not voodoo! You should test things, see > what works best, and go with it. If you see bugs, try to remove them. Sometimes you test two options and find that for some systems one works well and for other systems the other works well. Then if both options are available you can get most (maybe all) systems working well, but if one option isn't available then some systems don't work well. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006111659.15101.russ...@coker.com.au
