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

Chris Marlatt cmarlatt at
Thu Jun 5 15:21:36 UTC 2008

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 

IMHO, the attitude and opinion you have right now accomplishes nothing 
other than alienating your supporters.



More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list