From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 23:47:40 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 77D081065675 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:47:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB258FC13 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:47:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (cpe-74-77-179-53.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.179.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (8.14.1/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m57Nlcn4060028 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:47:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu) From: Ken Smith To: Jo Rhett In-Reply-To: <52E265BB-BBB1-439D-B375-D6C6AA04697C@netconsonance.com> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <48472DB6.5030909@samsco.org> <6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com> <200806050248.59229.max@love2party.net> <20080605083907.GD1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <902E9703E6E50776A17E9F92@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <20080605220244.GP1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <34E9F0D46D7B9F45EDA38F4C@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <48488D1A.9070105@kutulu.org> <52E265BB-BBB1-439D-B375-D6C6AA04697C@netconsonance.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-bnqouZLPRbcNqFe/S59c" Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:47:33 -0400 Message-Id: <1212882453.94878.51.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Cc: freebsd-stable Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 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: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:47:40 -0000 --=-bnqouZLPRbcNqFe/S59c Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 14:37 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > These are the raw issues without any friendly wording. >=20 > 1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other -RELEASE. > 2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2 > 3. Overall amount of bugs. > 4. Difference in code base between 6.3 and 6-STABLE is > than 6.2 and =20 > 6.3 >=20 > These combine to produce a release which will never be "stable" for =20 > production needs. The issue seems to be that we see no evidence that there is any significant volume to your item #2, and that's why you are receiving so much push-back on this. And that's what you are being asked for evidence of. That is the ONLY thing that should be preventing you from upgrading to 6.3. Item #1 can't be addressed at all and affects you while you're running 6.2 just as much as it would affect you running 6.3. Item #3 is irrelevant in most peoples' eyes because again we see no evidence that those bugs that would be part of #3 are not in 6.2 as well as 6.3. Item #4 is also a non-issue since there is no telling if any of that code that's changed affects something that you would notice. For example if a chunk of the code that's changed between 6.3 and 6-STABLE were an amd(8) import that has absolutely no relevance to any of this discussion, 6.3's overall stability, etc. As for your overall question of "Why can't 6.2 continue to be supported?" I answered that but from your reply it seems you may not have quite understood it. We typically support the LAST release in a branch for 2 years, it's typical to not support the earlier releases that long. That is based on the theory that we don't have regressions, and that if we do have regressions we fix them with Errata Notices. We did indeed have a major regression with 6.3 - there was a problem with the threads libraries which has been fixed with an Errata Notice. As I say the reason for so much push-back seems to be the lack of any concrete evidence that there are major regressions (by definition a regression being something that had worked in 6.2 that is broken in 6.3). From peoples' experiences and their surveys of the PR list we have not seen any evidence of the regressions you say you are concerned about - it seems like anything that would affect you in 6.3 should also be affecting you in 6.2. Since we all seem to be unable to find what you are concerned about could you please (when you have time - I have noticed you said you were time-crunched) let us know what they are? Given that perhaps we can address the issues and do Errata Notices. You have also asked about costs. A large one is the time of the volunteers on the security team. We take Security Advisories and Errata Notices VERY seriously - we try very hard to make sure that what gets posted is absolutely correct. That means applying the patches to all branches concerned and testing them as best we can. As code ages some of the more complicated patches can cause concern that they're not quite right for the older code because of fundamental changes that have been made (for example locking kernel data structures is hard, at times extremely complex, and what you need to "watch out for" can change over time even within a X-STABLE branch). And there is some cost in time/energy/resources to maintain FreeBSD-Update support. Those things don't mean we can't continue support of 6.2, but they do mean it requires effort. And again we can't seem to find any evidence that the effort is needed since we can't seem to find any evidence of *regressions* in 6.3. So when you've got the time let us know what evidence it is we're missing. And again, pointing at the CVS repository and saying "lots changed" isn't evidence. That's completely irrelevant because of many things including what I mentioned above (e.g. an import of vendor code shows up as changed code in our CVS repository but for the purposes of this discussion it's irrelevant). --=20 Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel | --=-bnqouZLPRbcNqFe/S59c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkhLHhUACgkQ/G14VSmup/Z03wCdHckc5laQbiJ2mo/di+Nb5EfF sVEAn0gb6o7ZA80BHjtcnZdDUe6iDlLB =EeH+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-bnqouZLPRbcNqFe/S59c--