Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>]

On 30-Aug-2009, at 22:28, Henrik K wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:10:23PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 29-Aug-2009, at 11:47, R-Elists wrote:
>>> have many, or any of you folks on the list migrated your production
>>> servers
>>> to the 3.3.0 alpha 2 or later release?
>>
>> Er.. hopefully no one did this on a production server. Or if they did
>> they are not really understanding 'alpha' and are willing to lose  
>> mail,
>> or worse.
>
> How is SA going to lose your mail?

Dunno, but it is ALPHA.  You know what that means? I specifically  
means it is not ready to be relied upon. BETA means that it is not  
ready for production servers, and ALPHA is pre-beta.

> I guess I've must lost it a lot since I've been using SVN version in  
> production for thousands of users for a year..

I value my users' mail far too much to use something that is not at  
release quality.

I know 3.3.0 compiles with my current environment, but I will not be  
running it until there is an actual release version.

-- 
Hey kids, shake it loose together the spotlight's hitting something
	That's been known to change the weather we'll kill the fatted
	calf tonight So stick around you're gonna hear electric music:
	Solid walls of sound

Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>]

On tir 01 sep 2009 07:56:03 CEST, Henrik K wrote

> I find your post just unnecessary FUD.

this is what maillists is for in the first place, no ?, if we just  
have to agree on all, there is no point being on maillists

is sa 3.3 working so great that email sent to you outside maillists is  
deletede ?

well newer mind i can live with this

-- 
xpoint

Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[Henrik K <he...@hege.li>]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:43:08AM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 31-Aug-2009, at 23:56, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 06:23:22PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 30-Aug-2009, at 22:28, Henrik K wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:10:23PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>>>>> On 29-Aug-2009, at 11:47, R-Elists wrote:
>>>>>> have many, or any of you folks on the list migrated your  
>>>>>> production
>>>>>> servers
>>>>>> to the 3.3.0 alpha 2 or later release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Er.. hopefully no one did this on a production server. Or if they 
>>>>> did
>>>>> they are not really understanding 'alpha' and are willing to lose
>>>>> mail,
>>>>> or worse.
>>>>
>>>> How is SA going to lose your mail?
>>>
>>> Dunno, but it is ALPHA.  You know what that means? I specifically  
>>> means
>>> it is not ready to be relied upon. BETA means that it is not ready  
>>> for
>>> production servers, and ALPHA is pre-beta.
>>
>> Yeah normal users obviously should just use "stable" OS packages
>
> Actually, you have that backwards. As a USER I use beta or alpha  
> software all the time. I have no problem with that, it's only my data I 
> am risking. As an admin, however, it's rather irresponsible. And as a 
> CUSTOMER if I saw my mail being marked up by an alpha release of  
> anything, I'd be shopping for another host.

So is using own rules allowed? Other peoples rules? If they are not marked
alpha/beta in any way, are they supposed to be production quality? How long
of a period must you test them before moving into production? SA is
basically a bunch of rules. How long do you have to test a "stable" SA
version before moving into production? Sorry man, but you are still FUD.
Whether it's SVN/alpha/beta/gamma/superstable doesn't matter. If it works
and is tested before putting in production, it's fine.

Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009, LuKreme wrote:

> Actually, you have that backwards. As a USER I use beta or alpha  
> software all the time. I have no problem with that, it's only my data I 
> am risking. As an admin, however, it's rather irresponsible. And as a 
> CUSTOMER if I saw my mail being marked up by an alpha release of  
> anything, I'd be shopping for another host.

LuKreme, many sysadmins vet source code before they put anything (even so
called "stable" releases) into production.  Other admins (it appears you are
in this latter camp) are either incapable of -- or uninterested in -- such a
task, and put their trust in the "stable" label, avoiding alphas, betas, and
all other greeks.  This is probably not the appropriate forum to debate which
approach is The Right One.  But it's just disingenuous (or perhaps
uninformed) to inflate the importance of stable vs. alpha vs. $foo without
referencing actual portions of the code that worry you. 

--
Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>

Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>]

On 31-Aug-2009, at 23:56, Henrik K wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 06:23:22PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>> On 30-Aug-2009, at 22:28, Henrik K wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:10:23PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>>>> On 29-Aug-2009, at 11:47, R-Elists wrote:
>>>>> have many, or any of you folks on the list migrated your  
>>>>> production
>>>>> servers
>>>>> to the 3.3.0 alpha 2 or later release?
>>>>
>>>> Er.. hopefully no one did this on a production server. Or if they  
>>>> did
>>>> they are not really understanding 'alpha' and are willing to lose
>>>> mail,
>>>> or worse.
>>>
>>> How is SA going to lose your mail?
>>
>> Dunno, but it is ALPHA.  You know what that means? I specifically  
>> means
>> it is not ready to be relied upon. BETA means that it is not ready  
>> for
>> production servers, and ALPHA is pre-beta.
>
> Yeah normal users obviously should just use "stable" OS packages

Actually, you have that backwards. As a USER I use beta or alpha  
software all the time. I have no problem with that, it's only my data  
I am risking. As an admin, however, it's rather irresponsible. And as  
a CUSTOMER if I saw my mail being marked up by an alpha release of  
anything, I'd be shopping for another host.


-- 
...but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there

Re: 3.3.0 alpha 2 on production mail servers / clusers ???

[Henrik K <he...@hege.li>]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 06:23:22PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 30-Aug-2009, at 22:28, Henrik K wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:10:23PM -0600, LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 29-Aug-2009, at 11:47, R-Elists wrote:
>>>> have many, or any of you folks on the list migrated your production
>>>> servers
>>>> to the 3.3.0 alpha 2 or later release?
>>>
>>> Er.. hopefully no one did this on a production server. Or if they did
>>> they are not really understanding 'alpha' and are willing to lose  
>>> mail,
>>> or worse.
>>
>> How is SA going to lose your mail?
>
> Dunno, but it is ALPHA.  You know what that means? I specifically means 
> it is not ready to be relied upon. BETA means that it is not ready for 
> production servers, and ALPHA is pre-beta.

Yeah normal users obviously should just use "stable" OS packages and don't
bother with anything requiring effort. But any SA enthusiast that somewhat
follows SA development should know that SVN has been "stable" for quite a
while and has benefits over 3.2 (especially when using something like
amavisd-new). I find your post just unnecessary FUD.