Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:23:14 +0000 From: Jonathan Looney <jlooney@juniper.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r296387 - head Message-ID: <D3032FF2.544FE%jlooney@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfo-imkuSNhRCWs47fucdOhraNRvk=pJNrLb-A8%2BfOmQSg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201603041603.u24G3F3V033038@repo.freebsd.org> <56D9BB1D.7040300@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfo-imkuSNhRCWs47fucdOhraNRvk=pJNrLb-A8%2BfOmQSg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > It's trivial so worth having. We should discuss what our "oldest > supported upgrade" release should be as currently it is 8.1. >=20 > We put it to 8.1 based on Juniper wanted it for their operations. > Normally we'd set this closer to 9.0 or something. If Juniper > no longer needs it, we should move up to 9.0 since that's typically > what we've done in the past at this point in the release cycle. I don't think Juniper cares about this anymore. Even if we do, I'm not sure why 8.1 would be the release we would choose (at least, at this point). Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D3032FF2.544FE%jlooney>