On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 10.x will likely be more stable if 9.x gets stressed, and the bugs
> from there get fixed in -HEAD.
>
> I know this goes against what users expect, but as a software
> developer, QA is only as good as your testing and validation
> procedures. :)
Being a realist (once again) most groups I've dealt with that have
the resources to test their releases lag behind by CURRENT-2 major
releases to avoid pushing unqualified code out on to customers.
Not everyone is willing to bet on the bleeding edge of things, but
this needs to change in order for things to move forward (this is
something that my previous mentor at IronPort -- ambrisko@ --
encouraged for me to do and he exercised on a regular basis). The
problem is time when it comes to pushing features forward to a newer
OS release and testing them (IronPort used to do this, but no longer
does as the individuals who used to do this left the group for other
greener pastures).
Thanks,
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
