Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:09:51 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: netgeek <netgeek@bgp4.net>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org> Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Schedule... Message-ID: <10CD6E03-D560-4F58-9157-0CC511EBFB48@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809222144470.26766@fledge.watson.org> References: <1219409496.10487.22.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809061159410.28840@fledge.watson.org> <2742CAB1-8FF2-425D-A3B6-0658D7DB8F4D@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809162043380.64176@fledge.watson.org> <0C2C7E9B-61E3-4720-B76F-4745A3C963DA@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809180022580.13100@fledge.watson.org> <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809181935540.16464@fledge.watson.org> <15F15FD1-3C53-4018-8792-BC63289DC4C2@netconsonance.com> <448wtpcikb.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <C096D142-4572-48DF-8CCA-053B41003A07@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809191158330.40909@fledge.watson.org> <34C3D54B-C88C-4C36-B1FE-C07FC27F8CB5@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809201102270.22368@fledge.watson.! org> <48D596AD.1070209@bgp4.net> <alpine.BSF.1.10.08092109525! 60.58772@fledge.watson.org> <7FC02881-91A6-4A2B-B58F-A4D1671B9978@netconsonance.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0809222144470.26766@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 22, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Robert Watson wrote: >>> This is precisely what we already do -- we guarantee we will >>> support the last release on a branch for 24 months after the >>> release. The point of concern being discussed is that we can't >>> tell you for sure which minor release will be the last release at >>> the time that release goes out the door, because the extent to >>> which we keep releasing on old branches depends in large part on >>> how the new branch looks. >> >> I think you are using "last release" in a different way. "the last >> release" is always the most recent 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. As I understand it, 6.3 will EoL in January of 2010. 6.4 will EoL in October of 2009. This is the head-scratcher that leaves me so very confused, and unable to figure out how to explain this to a businessperson. If it worked as you said -- the "latest release" is guaranteed 24 months but any previous release support ends at some point after the next release is out, then it's easy to explain to management. "Doing this upgrade gives you a minimum of 24 months of support" >> 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. Again, how do you explain that? And how do you explain a 3 month window where 6.3 is supported longer than 6.4? (not trying to be accusative or demanding, it's just a fairly odd situation) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10CD6E03-D560-4F58-9157-0CC511EBFB48>