Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:05:16 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Don JW Westlight <don@admin.ogi.edu> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/y2kbug.html Message-ID: <19990119120516.E474@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <36A32B66.A15D1F44@admin.ogi.edu>; from Don JW Westlight on Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 04:39:03AM -0800 References: <36A32B66.A15D1F44@admin.ogi.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, 18 January 1999 at 4:39:03 -0800, Don JW Westlight wrote: > Hello, > > Your Y2K page doesn't have a nice matrix to show which problems are > fixed in which release. > > Example Table > > version notes > > 2.2.2 compliant except ... > 2.2.3 compliant except ... > 2.2.4 compliant except ... > 2.2.5 compliant except .... > 2.2.6 compliant except ... > 2.2.7 compliant except ... > 2.2.8 compliant except TK, INN, Knews, NNTP > 2.2.9 compliant > > You do have a nice table of bug fixes, but it would be far more useful > if you have some table by revision number so I could look at 2.2.X to > see which things had been fixed in which revision. > > I'd love to have a "Y2K" stamp of approval for the basic OS on a > particular version. > > Is this making any sense? Am I looking in the wrong place? I suppose it makes sense, for *supported* versions of FreeBSD. We don't really have a definition of supported, but I'd say that it would be too much trouble to go further back than 2.2.8 and 3.0 (since they will both be obsolete by the end of the year). In the case of these versions, I hope we can just say "compliant". Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990119120516.E474>