From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 15:42:20 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0A516A47C for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:42:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-security@dfmm.org) Received: from dfmm.org (treehorn.dfmm.org [66.180.195.213]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0EE043D7B for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:42:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-security@dfmm.org) Received: (qmail 2747 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Oct 2006 15:42:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 11 Oct 2006 15:42:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Stone X-X-Sender: jason@treehorn.dfmm.org To: freebsd security In-Reply-To: <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> Message-ID: <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> References: <451F6E8E.8020301@freebsd.org> <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: security-officer@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:42:20 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> Though I admit RELENG_4 is getting dusty, it is not rusty. I believe it >> is still used in many places because of its stability and performance. >> [...] >> Is it envisageable to extend the RELENG_4's and RELENG_4_11's EoL once >> more ? > Yes, I'm also voting for it. I realize that resources to keep chasing this stuff are in limited supply, but if you solicit the opinion of the community, I'd bet that more people would rather see 4.x support continue than 5.x support. I know that it would be a violation of the stated policy, but I think that supporting 4.x and 6.x over the next year would benefit way more people than the current plan of supporting 5.x and 6.x and eol'ing 4.x. just a thought... -Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) Comment: See https://private.idealab.com/public/jason/jason.gpg iD8DBQFFLRDXswXMWWtptckRApQ/AJ9ocwgBjCKGG8E9/Uml4T9Da/wFlwCeLfiS kzo7WphIVjOVDg+fh5tbuP4= =ezVj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----