From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 21:06:35 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 D26921065685 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A6E8FC1A for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:06:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 26992 invoked by uid 399); 7 Jun 2008 21:06:34 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 7 Jun 2008 21:06:34 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <484AF859.9060005@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:06:33 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080606) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jo Rhett References: <9B7FE91B-9C2E-4732-866C-930AC6022A40@netconsonance.com> <4846D849.2090005@FreeBSD.org> <4846E14C.709@FreeBSD.org> <48472CCF.8080101@FreeBSD.org> <4847EF62.1070709@rxsec.com> <4847F814.10409@FreeBSD.org> <4847FB1D.1050400@rxsec.com> <4848073C.2060509@rxsec.com> <484821EE.5070303@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 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: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:06:35 -0000 Jo Rhett wrote: > On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is >>> so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered. >> >> On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very >> careful consideration and have been rejected due to lack of resources. >> There, feel better? >> >> Seriously folks, it's not as if we don't _want_ to be able to provide >> better, longer, faster, $whatever support. We're just trying to be >> realistic about what we can reasonably do with what we have available. > > > Doug, would you possibly (without attacking me?) give some insight into > the issues here? This is what I was asking: what prevents supporting > 6.2 ? Lack of time on the part of the people that do the support. (As has been explained lots of times already.) I realize that you'd rather have an answer that gives you something to argue about, but there isn't one. > Where could I best apply some of my time to improve the situation? Backport patches that you find interesting or relevant to 6.2, and post on the -stable list to let others know where to find them. Doug (no, I'm not being flippant) -- This .signature sanitized for your protection