On Jun 5, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
In short, the problem reports that the OP is looking at are not
immediately obvious to someone who doesn't already know what they
are, and he's not doing himself any favors by insisting that
everyone else "already knows" about these problems. If he's seen
these bug reports, presumably he knows what their PR #'s are, or at
the very least the description of the bugs, and it would be many
many times faster for him to just say so than continue to insist
that other people read his mind.
Mike, could you do me a favor and provide me with a set of words that
will make what I am trying to say on this topic clear? I keep saying
the same thing over and over again and nobody is hearing me, so could
you perhaps help me translate this?
These are the raw issues without any friendly wording.
1. Bugs in 6.3 that are patched aren't available in any other -RELEASE.
2. Bugs in 6.3 outstanding that don't affect 6.2
3. Overall amount of bugs.
4. Difference in code base between 6.3 and 6-STABLE is > than 6.2 and
6.3
These combine to produce a release which will never be "stable" for
production needs.
Obviously the FreeBSD team(s) involved have to make choices. Perhaps
there's nothing we can do to improve it other than work on the
specific bugs. But does it hurt to ask why 6.2 was dropped so fast?
What the real cost of supporting 6.2 until 6.4 ships is?
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
