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

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> In short, the problem reports that the OP is looking at are not  
> immediately obvious to someone who doesn't already know what they  
> are, and he's not doing himself any favors by insisting that  
> everyone else "already knows" about these problems.  If he's seen  
> these bug reports, presumably he knows what their PR #'s are, or at  
> the very least the description of the bugs, and it would be many  
> many times faster for him to just say so than continue to insist  
> that other people read his mind.


Mike, could you do me a favor and provide me with a set of words that  
will make what I am trying to say on this topic clear?  I keep saying  
the same thing over and over again and nobody is hearing me, so could  
you perhaps help me translate this?

These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.

1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other -RELEASE.
2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
3. Overall amount of bugs.
4. Difference in code base between 6.3 and 6-STABLE is > than 6.2 and  
6.3

These combine to produce a release which will never be "stable" for  
production needs.

Obviously the FreeBSD team(s) involved have to make choices.  Perhaps  
there's nothing we can do to improve it other than work on the  
specific bugs.  But does it hurt to ask why 6.2 was dropped so fast?   
What the real cost of supporting 6.2 until 6.4 ships is?

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