From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 18 15:21:44 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 3A361106566B for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:21:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [142.24.13.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10ED98FC14 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:21:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08871A00AB9C for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:21:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at smtp.sd73.bc.ca Received: from smtp.sd73.bc.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.sd73.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id GyZN4oLmU+o6 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from coal (s10.sbo [192.168.0.10]) by smtp.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE021A01306B for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:21:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 08:21:31 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <1219409496.10487.22.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200809180821.32188.fjwcash@gmail.com> 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: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:21:44 -0000 Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like Jo just wants to argue= =20 for the sake of arguing. =46irst Jo wrote: >No other answer. =A0But nobody has yet provided what the EoL period is =A0 >going to be. =A0I have no problems with a period being extended ;-) =A0But= =A0 >the business needs to know the minimum EoL for a given release to =A0 >determine if upgrading to that release is viable. To which Robert Watson replied, giving the minimums asked for: >Well, a starting answer is the policy found on=20 >http://security.FreeBSD.org/:=20 >Early adopter >=A0 =A0Releases which are published from the -CURRENT branch will be=20 >=A0 =A0supported by=20 >=A0 =A0the Security Officer for a minimum of 6 months after the release.=20 > >Normal >=A0 =A0Releases which are published from a -STABLE branch will be supporte= d=20 >=A0 =A0by the=A0Security Officer for a minimum of 12 months after the rele= ase. > >Extended >=A0 =A0Selected releases will be supported by the Security Officer for a=20 >=A0 =A0minimum of=A024 months after the release. And yet Jo completely ignored that, and focused in on something completely= =20 unrelated: > I am amazed at the preposterously large elephant in the room that none > of you are willing to address. Watching each of you dance around it > would be terribly funny if it didn't affect my job so badly. (and if > I wasn't going to have to bail on FreeBSD and go to some crap form of > Linux because the FreeBSD developers appear to be unwilling to > consider the idea of getting more help) Jo: You know the minimum support period for each release, before it is=20 released. You know what the earliest EoL time will be for each release=20 as it is released. What more do you want? =2D-=20 =46reddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com