From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 8 01:32:50 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 E2E671065672 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cliftonr@lava.net) Received: from outgoing01.lava.net (cake.lava.net [IPv6:2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18F08FC16 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:32:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cliftonr@lava.net) Received: from malasada.lava.net (malasada.lava.net [64.65.64.17]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CC5D00EB; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -1000 (HST) Received: by malasada.lava.net (Postfix, from userid 102) id 7654C153882; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -1000 (HST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -1000 From: Clifton Royston To: Jo Rhett Message-ID: <20080608013246.GB8955@lava.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jo Rhett , FreeBSD Stable References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846E637.9080101@samsco.org> <48472DB6.5030909@samsco.org> <6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com> <484736E0.6090004@samsco.org> <4847D5F8.80605@FreeBSD.org> <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: CLARITY 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: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:32:51 -0000 On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:10PM -0700, Jo Rhett 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? In what sense do you consider 6.2 stable? Stable as compared to what? I think a part of the problem here - not the only part - is that you are using idiosyncratic definitions of terms. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- cliftonr@iandicomputing.com / cliftonr@lava.net President - I and I Computing * http://www.iandicomputing.com/ Custom programming, network design, systems and network consulting services