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

[Freddie Cash]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Andy Kosela <andy.kosela at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/08, Freddie Cash <fjwcash at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/7/08, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>>> The question I raised is simply: given the number of bugs opened and
>>> fixed since 6.3-RELEASE shipped, why is 6.3 the only supported
>>> version?  Why does it make sense for FreeBSD to stop supporting a
>>> stable version and force people to choose between two different
>>> unstable versions?  Is this really the right thing to do?
>>
>>Define the terms "stable" and "unstable", how you measure said
>>"stability" and "instability", and what you are comparing them
>>against.
>
> This whole discussion is really interesting as it clearly showcases two
> common trends in computing (rapid development vs stability)

Like I said, you have to define what you mean by "stable" and
"unstable" before the discussion can continue.

"stable" can mean many things to many people.  You talk about feature
stability.  Other may talk about "number of open bugs" as being
unstable.  Others may talk of API/ABI stability.  Other may mean "code
that don't crash a system".

Your view of "stable" meaning "features don't change" is no where near
my definition of stable (systems that don't crash, and where I can run
binaries from older point releases on newer point releases).

The joy of English is that words are overloaded with multiple
meanings.  And until everyone agrees on which meaning of the words
they are using, there's very little point in discussing things ... as
everyone will be talking about something different.

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com