From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 22:46:21 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6893B1065672 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:46:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3211A8FC1A for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:46:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C78E46B32; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:46:20 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Jo Rhett In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1219409496.10487.22.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> <2742CAB1-8FF2-425D-A3B6-0658D7DB8F4D@netconsonance.com> <0C2C7E9B-61E3-4720-B76F-4745A3C963DA@netconsonance.com> <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> <15F15FD1-3C53-4018-8792-BC63289DC4C2@netconsonance.com> <448wtpcikb.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <34C3D54B-C88C-4C36-B1FE-C07FC27F8CB5@netconsonance.com> <48D596AD.1070209@bgp4.net> <7FC02881-91A6-4A2B-B58F-A4D1671B9978@netconsonance.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: netgeek , freebsd-stable , Lowell Gilbert Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Schedule... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:46:21 -0000 On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Robert Watson wrote: >> I think you are using "last release" in a different way. "the last >> release" is always the most release release. Right now 6.3 will have >> support for longer than 6.4 will, which is the nature of the problem I >> raised. If you always supported the most recent release for 24 months then >> we wouldn't have any problem. > > My calendar disagrees with you on this point -- 18 months from September, > 2008, is after 24 months from January, 2008. And I think it's much more > likely the release will go out in October. ... but the wrong calendar -- I was using 18 rather than 12 months, not sure where that came from. >> I mean seriously, if you were to say "We will support 6.4 for 24 months >> *unless* we find it necessary to release 6.5 then I'd be totally happy. But >> that's not what is being said. > > I think we pretty much are saying that: whatever the final release is will > be supported for 24 months. 6.4 will likely be it on 6.x, but we're not > 100% committed to that being the final decision because we want to see 7.1 > shake out well. The key point here holds, however: I think we should not ever be in the position of telling people that support lifetime on a release has been reduced. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge