Removing documentation

[Baho Utot]

Michelle Sullivan wrote:
> John Marino wrote:
>> On 2/15/2016 5:59 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
>>    
>>> It was actually worse than that.  Those of us who questioned the wisdom
>>> of such disruptive and backwards-incompatible changes being implemented
>>> mid-release instead of at a release boundry were A) ignored, B) told that
>>> there were not enough (developer) resources, and C) even the announcement
>>> was unprofessional and lacked justification for the rush job:
>>>      
>> This makes no sense.  Ports are not tied to base releases.
>> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason?
>>    
> Actually it made perfect sense... (for a change) ... make pkgng the
> default on 10.x and allow people to use either on 8.4 and 9.x ...  this
> made perfect sense...  Make base packaging using similar/same tools as
> part of 11+ makes perfect sense...
>
>
> ....No, though... arbitrary date set, f**k real users, f**k whether it
> works or not, because we need people to put it in production so we can
> test our buggy software...
>
>>    
>>>    There comes a time in the life cycle of just about every software
>>>    package that it has bee re-evaluated, refreshed, deprecated or just
>>>    retired.
>>>
>>>    It is time that we bid farewell to the old pkg_* software that has been
>>>    part of FreeBSD since the beginning, and has served us well.  After
>>>    years of development, testing, and playing, pkg(8) has become a
>>>    suitable replacement.
>>>
>>> "there comes a time"?  "time that we bid farewell"?  These are not
>>> suitable criteria IMO for dropping support of mission-critical
>>> subsystems.  The FreeBSD Foundation SHOULD have played a part in insuring
>>> a smoother transition to pkgng (much less portsng and, gack, rcng) but
>>> this doesn't seem to have been on their radar.
>>>      
>> You know good and well that people kick the can down the road FOREVER.
>> You could have announced it 3 years ahead and people would still scream
>> NOT YET!  NOT YET!  This would NEVER happen in Linux!
>>
>> It doesn't matter where you draw the line, you will never get everyone
>> to respect it.  It's never enough time.
>>    
> Line drawn - at the next major version...  that's an easy win... people
> can complain, but they can't argue that it isn't a good decision because
> they can choose... upgrade/don't upgrade... we didn't get the chance to
> choose ... it was forced down peoples necks... working or not.
> Fortunately I was able to get the old system working again... and in
> fact keep it up to date until about 3 months ago... (and only stopped
> there because I have other things to do - will go back to it again later.)
>
>>>>  From my perspective as an advocate and long-time user (since 2.0.5) this
>>>>        
>>> marked a low-point in the viability of FreeBSD vis-a-vis other FOSS
>>> distributions.  Thankfully, going forward from FreeBSD 11 the release
>>> cycle has been lengthened and base is going to be packaged.  Those of use
>>> who support large numbers of dev and production systems can at least
>>> expect that future upgrades won't be as time-consuming or, hopefully, as
>>> buggy.
>>>      
>> "large numbers of dev and production systems" (push to memory stack)
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>> I believe this is factually incorrect.  We were aware but the decisions
>>> were being made by core developers who were not, apparently, interested
>>> in our concerns or the expected fallout.
>>>      
>> So you chose to ignore the deadlines in the hopes the pleading would
>> work?  You intentionally did not prepare against the published timetable?
>>    
> Well I didn't know - despite following the conversations on the public
> lists - until 3 weeks before the event that the change was going to
> deliberately and irrevocably break the old systems... again...
>
>>    
>>>> There was always the option of freezing the tree and pulling in the
>>>> security updates manually until you were ready to migrate to pkg(8) too.
>>>>        
>>> Sure, if you can afford to pay a full-time core dev there's the option of
>>> backporting but even this was made impractical by the simultaneous
>>> deprecation of the pre-ng ports tree, make version and pkg format.
>>>      
>> No, it's not fully time.  You just said "large numbers of dev and
>> production systems", so I am pretty confident the business case would
>> have been there for this.
>>
>> It's a business, right?  You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby.
>>    
> Dunno about Roger, but I am and I had been campaigning internally about
> getting support for FreeBSD as a platform and support for the foundation
> in the way of devs and/or cash...  that is *never* going to happen now.
> Money has been allocated and sent to Redhat (nothing to do with me, but
> the pkgng debacle left me without legs to argue the case, so the
> decision makers stuffed that.)
>
>>> There are lots of reasons why Linux has effectively eclipsed BSD
>>> including device drivers, unattended deployments and install menus but
>>> 8.X's wholesale throwing of so many of us under the bus was by far the
>>> worst.
>>>      
>> And now the fully circle.  This is FreeBSD's Godwin's law.  You know the
>> discussion is over when somebody says that "[issue] of the day" is the
>> root cause of BSD being eclipsed by Linux.  Since I've heard [issue]
>> replaced about 200 times, I'm kind of doubting it.  I guess it's purpose
>> is to make everyone involved with "[issue]" to feel personally
>> responsible and oh what could have been if you hadn't of made the wrong
>> decision....
>>    
> That I can't (and won't) comment on, but I will tell you that's the
> reason all new servers I manage are being installed with CentOS+paid
> support contract and not FreeBSD+donation.  The bed was made by people,
> they can sleep in it.
>
> Michelle

What time of the month is it?
I seem to of lost my place.