On 2/15/2016 6:32 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> This makes no sense. Ports are not tied to base releases. >> And you think lack of developer resources is an invalid reason? > > There was no mid-release issue with base as far as I know. The issue was > with ports and by extension pkgng (and related -ngs).
ports are developed independently. They do not follow release schedules. Ports have to support all supported releases, that's the only connection. To say ports support has to coincide with a base release schedule shows a lack of understanding of ports development process. It also doesn't account for 3 concurrent releases (or 2 releases and -CURRENT) which are not synchronized. > was dated Feb 3 2014, leaving all of 7 months until the planned > deprecation. Even if you could make a case that pkgng was ready (it > wasn't) 7 months is far less than the 2 calendar year and dozens of > person-year cycles required by some infrastructure-critical production > environments. It's even farther from the 7+ years that other FOSS > distributions support their releases. what FOSS distributions support releases for 7+ years for gratis? One pays for that kind of support. Did your organization offer to pay for extended support? >> It's a business, right? You aren't talking about a shoestring hobby. > > There's no need to shoot the messenger here. I may be expressing an > opinion but it is one that is shared by all of my colleagues: developers, > administrators and managers alike. All your colleagues, developers, administrators, and managers want enterprise level support without paying any money at all? They *all* think volunteers provide that level of support just because? This is not messenger-shooting, this is wondering what kind of place has expectations like that. I've never worked at a place like that. John _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
