Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:00:52 -0400 From: Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <p06240807c470b4386601@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <08056909-E1BB-44D4-8DEC-D1A9EFC3E75D@netconsonance.com> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com><48472DB6.5030909@ samsco.org><6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com><200806 050248.59229.max@love2party.net><B9B83C12-7130-490D-A4BE-0469711B24DC@netc onsonance.com><20080605083907.GD1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <902E9703E6E50776A17E9F92@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <F73107AC17D94624BEAD24A987EE1926@multiplay.co.uk> <08056909-E1BB-44D4-8DEC-D1A9EFC3E75D@netconsonance.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:02 PM -0700 6/7/08, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>This thread was to question the reasoning behind obsoleting 6.2 so
>very quickly. It's a policy issue, not a single bug report. It has
>more to do with the "X results" column in a PR search than any
>single one of the entries.
Some CLARITY:
There is not a single committer that I know of who is convinced
by your argument that we (committers) should sign up for the
additional work of supporting 6.2 for an additional 6 months.
That is the answer to your "policy concern".
Let me say again:
*That* is the answer to your policy concern.
and:
That *is* the answer to your policy concern.
and:
That is the answer to your *policy* concern.
If you have specific issues that you experience with 6.3, then
several committers are still willing to investigate those issues,
because those would (presumably) help other users who have
already upgraded to 6.3.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06240807c470b4386601>