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

Jo Rhett jrhett at
Sat Jun 7 19:59:06 UTC 2008

On Jun 5, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> If the exact regression between 6.2 and 6.3 can be tracked down,  
> great.
> If it's in a specific driver, CVS commit logs or cvsweb will come in
> handy.  Otherwise, if it's some larger piece of code ("ohai i revamped
> the intrupt handlar!"), chances of finding it are slimmer.  I'm a bit
> disappointed that Jo hasn't explicitly mentioned what's broken in 6.3
> that's affecting him, because that might help everyone.  Heck, I'll  
> even
> add it to my Commonly reported issue wiki page.  PRs would be good,  
> but
> I'll gladly take past mailing list discussions.

I will start a new thread with the specific issues that concern my  
environment upon my return.  I'd like to keep the specific issues  
separate from the overall policy question, because they are very  
different in my mind.

> Jo's opinion is reasonable, but the bottom line is that the FreeBSD
> Project folks will always win the argument once the "it's best-effort"
> trump card is played; the convo has to end once it's on the table.

Yes, but it often gets played too often too fast.  It's worth having a  
discussion of the policy goals.  I'm not saying that this isn't the  
very best that FreeBSD can do -- maybe it is.  I just couldn't find  
any documentation of why dropping 6.2 makes a lot of sense, so I was  
hoping to get a clear answer for that.

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

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list