From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 22 14:05:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE72A16A4A7 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:05:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74F713C462 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:05:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.pgh.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pgh.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:05:04 -0500 id 00056424.458BE611.0000DF59 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:05:03 -0500 From: Bill Moran To: "Adrian Chadd" Message-Id: <20061222090503.77bc7f7c.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: References: <000801c723bb$efc2b540$260ba8c0@wii.wintecind.com> <458A2B14.5070009@freebsd.org> <458A97BF.1090503@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20061221095811.886d9850.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <200612220259.kBM2xYxc019408@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <20061222051513.GK63341@manor.msen.com> <20061222082639.GC837@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20061222072905.75f2c9d2.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.10 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Communicating with the public (was Re: Possibility for FreeBSD 4.11 Extended Support) 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: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:05:06 -0000 In response to "Adrian Chadd" : > On 22/12/06, Bill Moran wrote: > > > I could be wrong, but I get the impression that this whole EOL issue with > > 4.x is partly a result of not reminding people when the EOL date for 4.x > > is every 5 minutes. The result is that it's just hitting home for a lot > > of people now that it's the 11th hour. > > The trouble Squid had was its push to a new codebase (2.5 -> 3.0) > without adequately considering what users wanted. After all, if users > don't get any of what they want then there's probably no chance of any > paid work out of it.. Users cried for new features but with the > stability of the existing codebase. In the end the developers caved > and provided Squid-2.6 which seems to have begun reinvigorating the > project somewhat. > > I'm not saying thats the case here, but all the people I've seen > complain about 4.11 isn't because the upgrade path isn't -there-, its > because the upgrade path doesn't give them stability. People then > answer "but its stable for mee!"; both sides don't end up agreeing. > tsk .:) Agreed. The problem is that I'm _not_ seeing any problems. The result of this is: 1) I'm not motivated to do anything about it. 2) I don't even know what to do if I was motivated. Until this week, I didn't even know any stability problems existed in post 4.x systems until today, so I _couldn't_ do anything about it. I'm guessing you could say #1 and #2 for any number of developers. There are rumblings about stability issues. The problem is there's very little helpful information. My prediction is that these problems will persist until one of the following conditions is met: 1) Someone knowledgeable just gets interested and starts working on the problem. 2) Someone who needs these features puts some effort in to gathering some truly useful information. 3) Someone who needs these features decides to pay someone knowledgeable to work on it. It's interesting that another party who posted to the list earlier was complaining about how his stability issues went unfixed, yet he had _zero_ useful information on where the problem was originating from. After 5 minutes of searching the PR database, I found an open issue regarding lockups with quotas. This other guy never connected the dots? Never did any diagnosis? Never added his $.02 to the open PR? _That_ is why these things aren't getting fixed. Again, the thing that _absolutely_ boggles my mind is that these folks want to divert developer support _away_ from fixing these issues and to supporting legacy software. Quit bitching and go use Dragonfly. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.