From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 19:37:35 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCD41065686 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:37:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from mail.netconsonance.com (mail.netconsonance.com [198.207.204.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AA48FC0C for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:37:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from [10.66.240.106] (public-wireless.sv.svcolo.com [64.13.135.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netconsonance.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m91JbXev079480 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:37:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netconsonance.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=3.5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44, AWL=0.396] Message-Id: From: Jo Rhett To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <44abdw9oeq.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:37:27 -0700 References: <40C58F46-D705-4BE0-8AE5-17D901EE381A@netconsonance.com> <44abdw9oeq.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: Subject: Re: proposed change to support policy for FreeBSD Releases 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, 01 Oct 2008 19:37:35 -0000 On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > I'm not clear on how this helps. We don't know if there will be a > need to produce a 6.5 release, so there's no way to judge whether 6.4 > should be designated "final" or not. The only logical answer is to do > so, which leaves a substantial chance that there will end up being > more than one "final" release on the 6.x line. That's not a > particularly desirable situation. > > In fact, it's worse, because if 6.5 happens, it will probably be > because there were problems with 6.4 serious enough that we'd rather > people move to 6.5 anyway (at least for critical systems). You are exactly right. I am proposing that we stop trying to guess whether or not it is a final release. A release will be supported until the next release + N months (N is currently being debated I guess) or 24 months if there is no followup release. This effectively solves both of the problems you've very accurately named above. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness