Chris Marlatt wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Chris Marlatt wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Chris Marlatt wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Also, it's not like anyone should have been caught by surprise by
the 6.2 EoL; the expiry date has been advertised since the 6.2
release itself.
It has changed multiple times. I keep reviewing and finding 6.3
bugs outstanding, and then observe the EoL get pushed.
I'm surprised that it failed to get pushed this time.
I'm sorry that the FreeBSD project failed to conform to your
expectations. However, I invite you to actually try 6.3 for yourself
instead of assuming that it will fail.
Kris
In an effort to potentially find a compromise between those who
believe FreeBSD is EoL'ing previous releases too quickly and those who
don't. Have those in a position to set FreeBSD release schedules
debated the option of setting a long term support release, a specific
release picked by the team to be support for,.. 4 or 5 years? Other
projects have done this will relative success and considering the
"only" work required for this release would be security patches the
work load should be minimized. Hopefully something like this could
free up more time for the FreeBSD developers to continue their work on
the newer release(s) while still answering the requests of what seems
like quite a few of the legacy FreeBSD users. Thoughts?
If this has already been discussed on-list I apologize for beating a
dead horse but I can't recall it bring brought up before.
Uh yeah, this has been in place for *years*. Have you actually read
the
support announcements? They are public ;)
Kris
I do actually - and when was the last release that was support for such
a duration of time,.. 4.11? As of recent the longest I've seen has been
24 months with others being only 12.
Yes, and this is the FreeBSD definition of "long term support". Don't
like it? Do something about it.
Kris
You seem awful hostile - do you really think that's the best way to
represent the project you're involved with? Initially belittle someone
for offering their opinion and then when they reply telling them to do
it themselves or shut up? Try and have an open mind about these things.
The option provided seems like a fairly good compromise to both
interests. Pick 6.3 (or anything the release team wishes) to support for
a longer period of time. Keep all other releases to 12 month support and
continue doing what I believe is some fairly incredible work. I really
don't see the downside to it. If anything it should reduce the work load
for the team and let them focus on making considerable progress.
Especially considering Ken Smith's recent post regarding future release
schedules.
IMHO, the attitude and opinion you have right now accomplishes nothing
other than alienating your supporters.
There has been nothing of value offered in this thread, and it's only
served to piss off a number of developers who already put huge amounts
of volunteer time into supporting FreeBSD, and who take pride in the
quality of their work. Asking the volunteers to
a) fix unspecified problems that the submitter will not name in detail
but which are OMG SHOWSTOPPER YOU MUST FIX
b) donate even more unpaid time to supporting branches because it seems
like a good "compromise" (!)
shows a complete failure of understanding and frankly beggars belief.
Such people are not acting as supporters of the project, however
well-intentioned they may believe themselves to be.
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
