In message <XFMail.000513153928.emre@TITANIUM.2Y.NET>Emre writes,

>
>On 13-May-00 Perry E. Metzger wrote:


>I find this a bit unfair.  Users should be the ones who should do the testing,
>not the developers (it's in the name "developer").  And complaining that
>something broke in -current is very wrong! When you installed -current
>you should have taken the risk of breakage or certain things not working. 
>You run -current at your own risk, so quit bitching when little things go wron

Err, that should've been addressed to me, not Perry.
But look at what I asked, and look at what I responded.

I've got no beef at all with integreation of IPv6,x or testing of IPv6
and IPv4 userland code *on* *IPv6* *kernels*.  Itojun and others are
to be doing a great job there, by what I see.  That's not at issue.


The issue at stake is how well (or at all, in some cases) those
same IPv6 userland mods are being tested in non-IPv6 kernels.

Or, to put it another way, who do we collectively think is
supposed to test them, and who *is* acutally testing them?

Until now I'd assumed that was part and parcel of "IPv6 integration".
Is that wrong?  If it *is* wrong, who is actually be testing IPv6
changes on V4-only systems?

Itojun's answers so far seem designed to avoid those questions.
I wish Itojun would answer, instead of obfuscating.


Maybe you think that's just "bitching when little things go wrong".
But for me, its enough to make me worry that I may need to
consider switching OSes rather than upgrading to 1.5.