CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Jo Rhett]

I'm going to be offline for a week starting now, so please don't read  
my lack of answers as anything other than "out of town".  Sorry.

For clarity:  I'm not asking for anyone to fix anything.  I honestly  
believe most developers are addressing problems as fast as they can.   
I'd help them in any way I could.

I am suggesting that given that the current bug list for 6.3-RELEASE  
is both (a) too large and (b) breaks things that work fine in 6.2 ...  
that I think pushing 6.2 (the real stable release) into EoL is a bit  
rushed.  I sympathize with the development costs of maintaining old  
versions.  Again, I will help in any way I can.

On my return next week I would happily build and provide 6.3-RELEASE  
systems for any developer who needs a test environment for reported  
bugs that affect hardware I have in my possession.  Free boxes, free  
bandwidth, power, etc.  No problem.  Free my time in whatever way I  
can help.

But until such time as the current bug list for 6.3 hardware reduces  
to somewhere less than 100% likelyhood of experiencing failures after  
an upgrade, there's just no way I can take our production environment  
forward.  Going "bravely forward" to guaranteed failure isn't a great  
way to enjoy your job :-(  Which means I'll be doing our security  
patches by hand.   Because it may be time intensive, but it's less  
likely to cause a production failure.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness