From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 18 13:32:45 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 8765810656C3; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:32:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: from smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A938FC13; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:32:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (freebie.xs4all.nl [82.95.250.254]) by smtp-vbr12.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8IDWcC0047489; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:32:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8IDWHOP094833; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:32:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: (from wb@localhost) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m8IDWBVa094832; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:32:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wb) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:32:11 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-ID: <20080918133211.GL91598@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <47d0403c0809051319r3c82f87bhdb15ce5b0167987a@mail.gmail.com> <2742CAB1-8FF2-425D-A3B6-0658D7DB8F4D@netconsonance.com> <0C2C7E9B-61E3-4720-B76F-4745A3C963DA@netconsonance.com> <658B8861-1E78-4767-8D3D-8B79CC0BD45F@netconsonance.com> <20080918124608.GK91598@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20080918131840.GA18595@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080918131840.GA18595@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Cc: freebsd-stable , Wesley Shields , Ben Kaduk , Jo Rhett , Robert Watson , Nathan Way Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Schedule... 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: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:32:45 -0000 Quoting Jeremy Chadwick, who wrote on Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 06:18:40AM -0700 .. > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > Quoting Jo Rhett, who wrote on Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:25:27PM -0700 .. > > > On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > An important factor is whether or not we consider the release a > > > > highly maintainable release, and while we have intuitions at the > > > > time of release, that's something we can only learn in the first > > > > couple of months after it's in production. I don't know of any COTS > > > > software house that really does it any differently > > > > > > I understand what you mean, but the statement is blatantly false as > > > stated. Anyone selling software to the US Government *must* specify > > > (or meet, depending) a minimum support period, and must also specify a > > > cost the agency can pay to extend the support period. > > > > > > Not relevant to FreeBSD -- just qualifying the statement as it > > > stands. For the obvious comparison, Solaris versions have well- > > > published release and support periods, usually upwards of 8 years. > > > Obviously they have more resources to do this, I'm just pointing out > > > that the statement you made is incorrect as stated. > > > > > > > and I'm not sure you could do it differently -- no one plans to ship > > > > a lemon, but once in a while you discover that things don't go as > > > > planned. > > > > > > > > > I am amazed at the preposterously large elephant in the room that none > > > of you are willing to address. Watching each of you dance around it > > > would be terribly funny if it didn't affect my job so badly. (and if > > > I wasn't going to have to bail on FreeBSD and go to some crap form of > > > Linux because the FreeBSD developers appear to be unwilling to > > > consider the idea of getting more help) > > > > You seem to be *demanding* quite a lot lately. > > Jo has a point, though. I'm certain he's looked at the situation from > the developers' point of view, and in response, I'd recommend others > try to look at it from his, even if others consider it silly or > unreasonable. > > It's a frustrating situation, and there's no snap-your-fingers-voila > solution for it, other than extending support lifetimes per release. Indeed, there is no easy solution. Extending support lifetime takes more resources of course. Wilko