Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -1000 From: Clifton Royston <cliftonr@lava.net> To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <20080608013246.GB8955@lava.net> In-Reply-To: <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846E637.9080101@samsco.org> <BFF61274-C192-4361-9DEB-93DED2E02CA7@netconsonance.com> <48472DB6.5030909@samsco.org> <6010676B-91B0-4AF8-ACF8-039A59B29331@netconsonance.com> <484736E0.6090004@samsco.org> <C69AC20A-225C-478D-B0C8-B2F018B555C6@netconsonance.com> <4847D5F8.80605@FreeBSD.org> <37414AAF-C75A-4292-A174-2198BEF2A7DF@netconsonance.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080608013246.GB8955>