From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 11 16:20:34 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7B716A40F for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:20:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF3C543D70 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:20:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 84916 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2006 16:20:18 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 11 Oct 2006 16:20:18 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20061011.182018.41709122.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: freebsd-security@dfmm.org From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> References: <20061011102106.GY1594@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20061011151458.L97038@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20061011083021.C2780@treehorn.dfmm.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, security-officer@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [fbsd] HEADS UP: FreeBSD 5.3, 5.4, 6.0 EoLs coming soon 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: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:20:34 -0000 > 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. Yes, fully agreed. I'd much rather have longer support for 4.x than 5.x. We still have lots of machines running 4.11 here. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no