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

[Paul Schmehl]

--On Friday, June 06, 2008 08:02:44 +1000 Peter Jeremy 
<peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> wrote:

> On 2008-Jun-05 10:33:18 -0500, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists at tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> --On Thursday, June 05, 2008 18:39:07 +1000 Peter Jeremy
>> <peterjeremy at optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-Jun-04 22:22:33 -0700, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>>> And please stop with the loaded language.  I'm not asking anyone to work
>>>> for me.  I am suggesting that it is perhaps too early to EoL 6.2 because
>>>> 6.3 isn't ready yet.
>>>
>>> So you have stated.  When asked to provide evidence to backup that
>>> statement, you have refused.  Since you are the one claiming that
>>> "6.3 isn't ready yet", the onus is on you to put up or shut up.
>>
>> That is a blatant lie.
>
> I take exception to being called a lier.  Please either explain which of
> my above statements is false or apologise.

I apologize.  I reacted in anger because I felt the OP was being savagely 
attacked rather than being responded to with professionalism.  Later in the 
thread some folks got around to asking which PRs he was referring to, but that 
was after attacking him for having the temerity to suggest that perhaps 6.2 
shouldn't be EOL.

>
>>  He has stated repeatedly that there are *known*
>> bugs, complete with bug reports, that are not resolved and that affect the
>> hardware he uses.  He has also stated that there is no need for him to
>> provide further evidence of an already documented bug,
>
> I agree that he has made those statements - and those statements may
> even be true.  When asked to provide details of the bugs or references
> to those problems, he has refused.  Random, unsubstantiated claims are
> hardly evidence of anything.
>

I don't recall him ever refusing.  I think after his initial post he's been 
forced to defend himself from attack from 360 degrees.  It's rather hard to 
focus on the facts when you're being attacked like that.  That's what provoked 
me to respond as I did - to you and to others.

>
> To summarise, so far the OP has made a series of unsubstantianted
> claims about vaguely defined problems on vaguely defined hardware.
> When asked for more details, he has refused.

I think that's an unfair characterization.  He stated that he had noted 
numerous bugs in 6.3 (submitted PRs) that he perceived affected him personally 
and so he chose not to update to 6.3.  He then asked if 6.2 couldn't be 
extended farther.  That seems like a reasonable question to ask.  A simple, 
professional answer would have settled the matter quickly.

But it was all downhill from there.

I'm not here to defend him.  He can do that himself.  What I took offense to 
was the gang mentality of jumping on him and accusing him of things no one 
could possibly have knowledge of and the childish, immature reaction of some on 
the list.

>  Exactly what do you expect the FreeBSD developers to do?
>

I expect the FreeBSD developers to continue to produce the highest quality OS 
on the market.  I also expect them to treat their customers with respect and 
professionalism and patience.  I don't think that's too much to ask.  Shouldn't 
the developers' behavior match the high quality of their work?

I recently had to deal with two PRs for ports that I maintain.  I initially 
thought both were rather silly.  After testing, I found that one was not, and 
in fact, the user had uncovered a problem I would never have thought to test 
for (and obviously hadn't.)

Had I jumped on them for not giving more details or harangued the committer for 
not pointing out my errors, I would have missed an opportunity to improve both 
a port and my knowledge of porting.  But I withheld my personal views and 
approached both submitters with respect and professionalism.  In the end, I was 
wrong.  But no one but me knew that (until now) because I withheld my personal, 
emotional response.

I'm not bragging.  I don't think that's anything to brag about.  I just think 
we'd all benefit if we could keep the personal opinions personal and deal with 
requests on the list with respect and professionalism, just as we would like to 
be treated.

>> yet he is willing to
>> provide equipment with 6.3 RELEASE installed if any developer needs a
>> platform to test and troubleshoot the bugs.
>
> In the absence of any details about the problems he believes he has,
> such an offer is meaningless.

You can't possibly mean that.  Your choice of words is horrible.  How can it 
ever be meaningless to offer assistance to the community, however small?  I've 
noticed this attitude on more than one occasion.  It's as if "we" are the 
little people, not fit to be in the same room with the mighty developers.

Rest assured, each of us has talents that others can't match and each of us has 
weaknesses that others can expose.  We'd all be better off if we focused on the 
former and de-emphasized the latter.

>  Reading his actual posting, it reads
> more like "who would like to do my QA/validation for me and fix any
> bugs they find for free".  In general, the underlying problem is lack
> of developer resources, rather than lack of hardware.
>

OK.  When he originally posted his question, someone should have simply said, 
"The EOL issue is well settled and no longer open to debate.  However, we'd be 
happy to try and resolve any issues you think you might have upgrading to 6.3 
if you can provide us with the following:

1) Specific issues including references to specific PRs
2) A list of any assistance you can or would be willing to provide to help 
isolate these issues

That alone would have wasted much less of the valuable developers' limited 
resources.  (And I mean that with all sincerity.  I have the highest respect 
for what you folks do and wish I had the skills to contribute.)

>> What is the purpose of the insults and denigration?
>
> I fail to see where I have insulted or denigrated anyone.  OTOH, your
> first words to me were an insult.

I know you fail to see that.  I've noticed others have as well.  That doesn't 
mean they aren't preceived that way any more than your perception of his 
approach to this issue isn't at all what he thought it was.

Misunderstanding cuts both ways.

-- 
Paul Schmehl
As if it wasn't already obvious,
my opinions are my own and not
those of my employer.