Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:18:32 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@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: <20080605181832.GA31773@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <48480473.3010009@rxsec.com> References: <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
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 05:39:36PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote: > You seem awful hostile - do you really think that's the best way to > represent the project you're involved with? When confronted with "what you are doing is wrong, but I am not going to tell you what it is because if you cared you'd already know" (my summary of your past postings in this thread)? Possibly not 'best' but 'understandable'. > 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. If you want FreeBSD to be supported the same as a commercial product, and you be able to dictate the terms, then it's not going to happen completely via volunteer effort. At some point some money is going to have to change hands. Either you pay someone at your company to do support, or you hire someone external. Then you get to dictate what is supported and for how long. Otherwise, all you can do is to suggest. A "consensus statement" signed off on by one person is the former -- not the latter. Now to add my own frustration to the list ... I next note that _after_ you said you had no more time to continue with this thread for now (and thus could not yet give us pointers to specific failures and any corresponding PR numbers), you are still replying to email. Since you still seem to have some time, let me help you do a little research here. Checking the PRs that you have submitted that are still current, none of the src-related ones are from anything newer than 6.0R: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?originator=Jo+Rhett There are some resources to help you find already-submitted PRs to reference if it will help. (The latter 2 are new, and are attempts by the bugbusting team to flag 'well-known problem' and 'PR indicates regression'): http://wiki.freebsd.org/JeremyChadwick/Commonly_reported_issues http://people.freebsd.org/~linimon/studies/prs/well_known_prs.html http://people.freebsd.org/~linimon/studies/prs/prs_for_tag_regression.html Now I'll admit the following is a less-obvious query of the database, but it's my attempt to show regressions that we have already flagged in 6.3: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?release=%5EFreeBSD+6.3&category=kern&text=regression So these 4 links should give you some quick ways to generate some PR numbers for us. Finally, here are some statistics about PR count: rel all kern --- --- ---- 6.0 210 91 6.1 217 81 6.2 396 102 6.3 167 56 7.0 563 140 To me, this doesn't look like an overwhelming case for 6.3 being worse off than 6.2. Yes, I'm sure there are regressions: there are in any release. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080605181832.GA31773>