From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 21:34:12 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 CB3FF106564A for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:34:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kutulu@kutulu.org) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BAB8FC0A for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:34:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kutulu@kutulu.org) Received: from basement.kutulu.org ([70.121.200.185]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20080607213411.NLAN28655.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@basement.kutulu.org> for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 21:34:11 +0000 Received: from [192.168.69.4] (wombat.jungle [192.168.69.4]) by basement.kutulu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C08011440 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:32:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <484AFED9.1030209@kutulu.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:34:17 -0400 From: Mike Edenfield User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Stable 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> <4847FFDE.8000209@FreeBSD.org> <48480473.3010009@rxsec.com> <484808B8.8070506@FreeBSD.org> <5CCF0D6E-56C1-4EBD-B8A6-955311F7851E@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <5CCF0D6E-56C1-4EBD-B8A6-955311F7851E@netconsonance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 21:34:12 -0000 Jo Rhett wrote: > This is why EoLing 6.2 and forcing people to upgrade to a release with > lots of known issues is a problem. You keep saying this as if it's somehow unusual that 6.3 has a lot of open bugs. Yet even a cursory look at the PR list (admittedly based just on the specific drivers you mentioned early on, but presumably a decent random sampling) shows that most of the remaining open issues in 6.3 are not new, and were present in 6.2 or even as far back as 6.0. Certainly there are plenty of issues that were fixed in 6.3 that were present in the 6.2 version you're already running. In other words, you haven't provided any real support to back up your claim that 6.3 is significantly "less stable", for whatever that means, than 6.2. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the anecdotal, first-person experience in running 6.3 in production indicates quite the opposite -- that it's *more* stable than 6.2. You've already stated that you don't want to side track this thread with specifics about your exact bugs. The problem is, without specifics to back up your claims of instability, they are (in your own words) little more than hyperbole. It shouldn't surprise anyone that you got a negative reaction to that kind of statement. --Mike