From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 22:00:55 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 9AFAC106566C for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp8.server.rpi.edu (smtp8.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F5E8FC0C for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp8.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m57M0rFv010120; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:00:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: 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><20080605083907.GD1028@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <902E9703E6E50776A17E9F92@utd65257.utdallas.edu> <08056909-E1BB-44D4-8DEC-D1A9EFC3E75D@netconsonance.com> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:00:52 -0400 To: Jo Rhett From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam scanning disabled X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.228 Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:00:55 -0000 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