challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3
cmarlatt at rxsec.com
Thu Jun 5 14:46:15 UTC 2008
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.
>> 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 ;)
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.
More information about the freebsd-stable