Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:29:18 -0700 From: "Freddie Cash" <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: "FreeBSD Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <b269bc570806072329p34c78feav59f28ecaa2aa4d4f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846E637.9080101@samsco.org> <BFF61274-C192-4361-9DEB-93DED2E02CA7@netconsonance.com> <48472DB6.5030909@samsco.org> <6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com> <484736E0.6090004@samsco.org> <C69AC20A-225C-478D-B0C8-B2F018B555C6@netconsonance.com> <4847D5F8.80605@FreeBSD.org> <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote: > The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and > fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported > version? Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a > stable version and force people to choose between two different > unstable versions? Is this really the right thing to do? Define the terms "stable" and "unstable", how you measure said "stability" and "instability", and what you are comparing them against. Only then can people understand what you are talking about, and can any kind of meaningful dialog occur. Right now, you are saying one thing, people are hearing another, and responding with something else. Oh, and be sure to back things up with actual data, otherwise there's no point in going any further with this. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b269bc570806072329p34c78feav59f28ecaa2aa4d4f>