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

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> So he should at least be able to name the relevant PRs.
> Or name at least one. Then nobody would complain.

I'm sure somebody would complain ;-)  but yeah, valid.  Unfortunately  
I was on my 3rd day of less than 3 hours sleep and had to leave in  
less than 9 hours from my post, with 12 hours of work to do before  
then.  I really honestly didn't have the time.

I wanted to hold the post until I returned, but last time I did that I  
got dozens of accusations of sitting on it and speaking sooner, etc etc.

I was hoping in my wishes-were-horses brain that someone would provide  
some insight into the issues that made obsoleting 6.2 a good idea, so  
that on my return I could determine how best to focus my efforts.

> But stating "it's all well documented" without providing evidence
> doesn't help. I for one was not able to find any open PRs that
> deal specifically with 3ware hardware and 6.3, but not 6.[0-2].
...
> Agreed, but he should name the PRs he's referring to.
> You know, my crystal ball is at the shop for a check, and
> it seems like everybody else's is, too.

Because focusing on the specifics never helps with policy issues.   
Every time I raise a policy issue and someone asks for specific bugs  
relevant, I answer them and the overall policy issue degrades into the  
merits of the specific problem, and usually into insults from people  
who don't understand why I don't replace X piece of hardware.  The  
overall policy question gets lost.

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