From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 23 18:31:53 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 4104C106564A; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:31:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from mail.netconsonance.com (mail.netconsonance.com [198.207.204.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162BB8FC16; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:31:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from [172.16.12.8] (covad-jrhett.meer.net [209.157.140.144]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netconsonance.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m8NIVngp056705; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:31:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netconsonance.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=3.5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44, AWL=-0.960] Message-Id: From: Jo Rhett To: Ian Smith In-Reply-To: <20080923163556.H76357@sola.nimnet.asn.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:31:49 -0700 References: <1219409496.10487.22.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> <2742CAB1-8FF2-425D-A3B6-0658D7DB8F4D@netconsonance.com> <0C2C7E9B-61E3-4720-B76F-4745A3C963DA@netconsonance.com> <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> <15F15FD1-3C53-4018-8792-BC63289DC4C2@netconsonance.com> <448wtpcikb.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <34C3D54B-C88C-4C36-B1FE-C07FC27F8CB5@netconsonance.com> <48D596AD.1070209@bgp4.net> <7FC02881-91A6-4A2B-B58F-A4D1671B9978@netconsonance.com> <20080923163556.H76357@sola.nimnet.asn.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Cc: freebsd-stable , Robert Watson , "Simon L. Nielsen" Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Schedule... 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: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:31:53 -0000 On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Ian Smith wrote: >> 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 believe that's exactly what has been said. rwatson@ and simon@ have > both made it exceedingly clear, to me anyway, that if 6.4 is to be the > last release on the 6.x branch - as appears to be likely but cannot be > stated definitely at this time, for reasons clearly given and > understood > - then it will indeed be supported for 24 months. > > It doesn't seem reasonable to expect 24 months stated support for > 6.4 if > it turns out not to be the last release - that would then apply to > 6.5. Have you read any of the existing thread? Right now 6.4 will go out of support 3 months before 6.3. Which might or might not change at some point in the future. Isn't this obviously a fairly major problem for any business or even any person to want to spend any time to test/evaluate/etc 6.4? What I proposed in my message (which you completely ignored) was an incremental support policy that builds on each release, instead of actually promoting the idea of skipping releases. This may not be a good idea -- it was just a toss out there, but it makes a lot more sense than the existing policy. Could you at least respond to the issues raised here? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness