On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
2 years for each supported branch would be excellent, although I'm
open to alternatives. Right now 6.4 will EoL before 6.3 will :-(
Eh, where did you get that information? AFAIK the EoL date of 6.4 has
not yet been decided (and I should know though of course I could have
I asked specifically on this list. First I was told it hadn't been
decided. My response was to point out that this makes it very hard
for a company to decide to commit resources to test it, if there may
never be a reasonable chance for deployment. Then I was told it was 1
year, or perhaps just 6 months if it was ruled to be an unstable
version. Either answer is less than 6.3's support period.
If, when we get closer to the actual release, still is the plan for
6.4 to be the last RELENG_6 release I'm almost certain 6.4 will be a
Extended Support release.
That would be excellent. As soon as you know if this will be true,
I'll be able to convince $EMPLOYER to allow me to spend time testing
this release. If its not an extended support release, then it will
expire before 6.3 (which is already tested) and thus $EMPLOYER gains
no value in the effort.
FWIW, this is why I'm in favor of consistent support periods. When
you align the business benefit with the community benefit, you can get
the business to help improve the community product.
(remainder snipped to a different subject line)
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
