Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:11:01 -0400 From: Chris Marlatt <cmarlatt@rxsec.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <48481015.4030806@rxsec.com> In-Reply-To: <484808B8.8070506@FreeBSD.org> References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846D849.2090005@FreeBSD.org> <4846E14C.709@FreeBSD.org> <AC78CAC0-BA7C-4A20-9BEE-E7E37FD225E7@netconsonance.com> <48472CCF.8080101@FreeBSD.org> <4847EF62.1070709@rxsec.com> <4847F814.10409@FreeBSD.org> <4847FB1D.1050400@rxsec.com> <4847FFDE.8000209@FreeBSD.org> <48480473.3010009@rxsec.com> <484808B8.8070506@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > Chris Marlatt wrote: >> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> Chris Marlatt wrote: >>>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>>> Chris Marlatt wrote: >>>>>> Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>>>>> Jo Rhett wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote: >>>>>>>>> Also, it's not like anyone should have been caught by surprise by >>>>>>>>> the 6.2 EoL; the expiry date has been advertised since the 6.2 >>>>>>>>> release itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It has changed multiple times. I keep reviewing and finding 6.3 >>>>>>>> bugs outstanding, and then observe the EoL get pushed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm surprised that it failed to get pushed this time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sorry that the FreeBSD project failed to conform to your >>>>>>> expectations. However, I invite you to actually try 6.3 for >>>>>>> yourself >>>>>>> instead of assuming that it will fail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kris >>>>>> In an effort to potentially find a compromise between those who >>>>>> believe FreeBSD is EoL'ing previous releases too quickly and those >>>>>> who >>>>>> don't. Have those in a position to set FreeBSD release schedules >>>>>> debated the option of setting a long term support release, a specific >>>>>> release picked by the team to be support for,.. 4 or 5 years? Other >>>>>> projects have done this will relative success and considering the >>>>>> "only" work required for this release would be security patches the >>>>>> work load should be minimized. Hopefully something like this could >>>>>> free up more time for the FreeBSD developers to continue their >>>>>> work on >>>>>> the newer release(s) while still answering the requests of what seems >>>>>> like quite a few of the legacy FreeBSD users. Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> If this has already been discussed on-list I apologize for beating a >>>>>> dead horse but I can't recall it bring brought up before. >>>>> Uh yeah, this has been in place for *years*. Have you actually >>>>> read the >>>>> support announcements? They are public ;) >>>>> >>>>> Kris >>>> >>>> I do actually - and when was the last release that was support for such >>>> a duration of time,.. 4.11? As of recent the longest I've seen has been >>>> 24 months with others being only 12. >>> >>> Yes, and this is the FreeBSD definition of "long term support". >>> Don't like it? Do something about it. >>> >>> Kris >> >> You seem awful hostile - do you really think that's the best way to >> represent the project you're involved with? Initially belittle someone >> for offering their opinion and then when they reply telling them to do >> it themselves or shut up? Try and have an open mind about these things. >> >> The option provided seems like a fairly good compromise to both >> interests. Pick 6.3 (or anything the release team wishes) to support >> for a longer period of time. Keep all other releases to 12 month >> support and continue doing what I believe is some fairly incredible >> work. I really don't see the downside to it. If anything it should >> reduce the work load for the team and let them focus on making >> considerable progress. Especially considering Ken Smith's recent post >> regarding future release schedules. >> >> IMHO, the attitude and opinion you have right now accomplishes nothing >> other than alienating your supporters. > > There has been nothing of value offered in this thread, and it's only > served to piss off a number of developers who already put huge amounts > of volunteer time into supporting FreeBSD, and who take pride in the > quality of their work. Asking the volunteers to > I don't think anyone has really said their quality is in question. At least not myself. The OP stated there are unclosed bugs that be believes are preventing him from using 6.3 and called into question the decision of EoL'ing 6.2. Granted he should have tested it anyways vs. waiting until hell freezes over but at this time thats somewhat beside the point. Just because someone questions a decision or notes there are unclosed bugs doesn't mean they appreciate the work the team as a whole is doing any less. > a) fix unspecified problems that the submitter will not name in detail > but which are OMG SHOWSTOPPER YOU MUST FIX > Again I completely agree that the OP should have provided the PRs. If for nothing else to ensure that you're talking about exactly the same issue and not anything similar. How about just saving you from having to look them up? > b) donate even more unpaid time to supporting branches because it seems > like a good "compromise" (!) This may or may not be the case. Like I said if it's a horrible idea sorry for wasting your time. But it seems fairly logical to me as a good solution to the problem and should net the team more time for things that really count. > > shows a complete failure of understanding and frankly beggars belief. > > Such people are not acting as supporters of the project, however > well-intentioned they may believe themselves to be. > I respectfully disagree. > Kris Regards, Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48481015.4030806>