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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
