Upcoming Releases Schedule...

[Wilko Bulte]

Quoting Jeremy Chadwick, who wrote on Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 06:18:40AM -0700 ..
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > Quoting Jo Rhett, who wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:25:27PM -0700 ..
> > > On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
> > > > An important factor is whether or not we consider the release a  
> > > > highly maintainable release, and while we have intuitions at the  
> > > > time of release, that's something we can only learn in the first  
> > > > couple of months after it's in production.  I don't know of any COTS  
> > > > software house that really does it any differently
> > > 
> > > I understand what you mean, but the statement is blatantly false as  
> > > stated.  Anyone selling software to the US Government *must* specify  
> > > (or meet, depending) a minimum support period, and must also specify a  
> > > cost the agency can pay to extend the support period.
> > > 
> > > Not relevant to FreeBSD -- just qualifying the statement as it  
> > > stands.  For the obvious comparison, Solaris versions have well- 
> > > published release and support periods, usually upwards of 8 years.   
> > > Obviously they have more resources to do this, I'm just pointing out  
> > > that the statement you made is incorrect as stated.
> > > 
> > > > and I'm not sure you could do it differently -- no one plans to ship  
> > > > a lemon, but once in a while you discover that things don't go as  
> > > > planned.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am amazed at the preposterously large elephant in the room that none  
> > > of you are willing to address.  Watching each of you dance around it  
> > > would be terribly funny if it didn't affect my job so badly.  (and if  
> > > I wasn't going to have to bail on FreeBSD and go to some crap form of  
> > > Linux because the FreeBSD developers appear to be unwilling to  
> > > consider the idea of getting more help)
> > 
> > You seem to be *demanding* quite a lot lately.
> 
> Jo has a point, though.  I'm certain he's looked at the situation from
> the developers' point of view, and in response, I'd recommend others
> try to look at it from his, even if others consider it silly or
> unreasonable.
> 
> It's a frustrating situation, and there's no snap-your-fingers-voila
> solution for it, other than extending support lifetimes per release.

Indeed, there is no easy solution.  Extending support lifetime takes more
resources of course.

Wilko