From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 8 19:25:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4681065680 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:25:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from mail.stovebolt.com (mail.stovebolt.com [66.221.101.249]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFCA8FC0C for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (cpe-24-175-90-48.tx.res.rr.com [24.175.90.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.stovebolt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AF9611438F for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:25:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:25:28 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl To: FreeBSD Stable Message-ID: <5A8D6D5A88275154227302D9@Macintosh.local> In-Reply-To: <20080608164928.L16871@fledge.watson.org> References: <8cb6106e0806071938x6a524ba4o969fbc4f0c85206@mail.gmail.com> <20080608164928.L16871@fledge.watson.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) X-Munged-Reply-To: To reply - figure it out MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="==========2D940CB77D2C2B1992C1==========" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: 6.2; 6.3; EOL; combustible discussions X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:25:31 -0000 --==========2D940CB77D2C2B1992C1========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --On June 8, 2008 4:52:36 PM +0100 Robert Watson =20 wrote: > > Just to be clear here, Adrian's claim that if someone else provided > patches for 6.2, they would be committed, is incorrect. The cost of > committing the patch is almost zero -- the cost of QA'ing the patch, > doing freebsd-update rebuilds, preparing security or errata notices, > etc, is extremely real, and the reason that we carefully limit the > number of releases we support at once. In fact, I'd argue that we have > been supporting too many releases at once, as I think our latency for > shipping errata notices and advisories is too high. By reducing the > number of releases we support, we improve the speed and attention we can > give each notice/advisory, which is an important consideration. > What would be the most beneficial boost to FreeBSD? Would it be cash?=20 Additional developers? Does FreeBSD have anyone who works fulltime (IOW, is paid)? Would more fulltime workers alleviate the issues you've articulated? Paul Schmehl If it isn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. --==========2D940CB77D2C2B1992C1==========--