From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 07:46:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DD21065674 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:46:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us) Received: from dsl254-019-221.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net (dsl254-019-221.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [216.254.19.221]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEFC8FC15 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:46:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us) Received: (qmail 38955 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2008 07:19:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 9 Jun 2008 07:19:49 -0000 Message-ID: <484CD995.3040002@zircon.seattle.wa.us> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:19:49 -0700 From: Joe Kelsey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080503) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: 6.3-RELEASE versus 5.2-RELEASE 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: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:46:31 -0000 I think I have finally decoded Jo Rhett's issue. It is very hard to decipher because the poster refuses to exactly identify their problem. The entire problem comes down to the definition of -RELEASE. Jo apparantly feels that they can ONLY run -RELEASE branded code at their workplace. That means that they cannot run any form of -STABLE. Therefore, they can only ever run 6.3-RELEASE and then only if no bugs were fixed after the official branding of 6.3-RELEASE. I cannot speak at all about the branding of 6.3-RELEASE. I run 7.0-STABLE here. What Jo seems to thik is that a certain sequence of events occurred during the 6.3-RELEASE branding. 6.3-RELEASE was marked in the tree. Sometime after this marking event occurred, bugs were ientified and subsequently fixed in the -STABLE branch. These bugs have been identified by Jo as SHOWSTOPPER bugs which will prevent him from ever using 6.3-RELEASE, since by their definition, they can only ever use the exact thing identified by the cvs tag of 6.3-RELEASE. Therefore, by Jo's definition, they can never run 6.3-anything at their shop and are forced to wait for 6.4-RELEASE, whenever that happens. Therefore, they must take on the onerous duty of examining all security fixes target for 6.3 and redo them for 6.2. Basically, they do not wish to do this and protest the EoL status given to 6.2 because they are physically prevented from using 6.3. They refuse to even try to identify whether or not 6.3-RELEASE actually has any bugs that affect them, they just assume that the presence of bugs fixed AFTER the tagging of 6.3-RELEASE in cvs certifies their inability to use the actual 6.3-RELEASE code, since they can apparantly only run binary releases direct from FreeBSD and cannot "roll their own" for some unknown reason. They are also, apparantly, prohibited from testing any code locally due to some unknowable reason. Can anyone verify that some number of bugs related to either a) gmirror, b) bge and/or c)twe were fixed after the release of 6.3? That is as far as I can tell the reason that Jo objets to EoL of 6.2, the fact that 6.3 is unusable due to these late-fixed bugs. /Joe