On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Ben Kaduk wrote:
Normal
Releases which are published from a -STABLE branch will be
supported by the Security Officer for a minimum of 12 months after the
release.
Extended
Selected releases will be supported by the Security Officer for a
minimum of 24 months after the release.
I don't remember seeing any speculation about 6.4 being an extended
release, so, EoL is 12 months after release, whenever that actually
happens.
Okay, so 6.3 will EoL at roughly the same time as 6.4. Why should
anyone spend any effort on 6.4?
That's the difference between a long-term-support branch and a
regular branch;
many OSes do that. If you want to run the same machines for a long
time and
not have to do a huge battery of tests (at the expense of getting
new features
and better performance in the interim), you use long-term branches.
The regular branches that get released later, will then become
unsupported
at the same time as the (older) long-term branch.
Yes, it's poor when a long-term branch goes EoL before there's
another one
ready to take its place, but if the new one isn't ready, then you
just use
whichever regular release is current and then snag a long-term release
when it becomes available. Yes, it's more work, but that's life.
Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?
This does make it clear to me why the release team can't find the
resources to do longer support. Who can convince their company to put
resources into the mainstream release effort, when this kind of cycle
basically forces every company to run their own internal release
process.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
