On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
Robert, I'd like to point out to you that when I complained about
6.2's accelerated EoL, I was soundly boxed around the ears and told
that I should have been paying attention to the projected EoL date
when we decided to roll out 6.2 across the business.
Now you are saying that expected EoL will be determined at some
random point in the future based on gut feelings about how well a
completely different branch is doing.
How can I reconcile these disparate points of view? How does one
focus on testing and upgrade cycle for an "appropriately supported
release" when the decision for the support cycle is completely up
in the air?
On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
The FreeBSD Project, as with any other company or organization,
responds to events as they occur. We try to plan ahead, and when
things go better or worse than expected, we sometimes change the
plans. As far as I know we've never *shortened* the expected
support timeline for any branch or release, but we have on occasion
lenthened them when we feel it's important to do so. I'm not sure
what other answer is possible.
No other answer. But nobody has yet provided what the EoL period is
going to be. I have no problems with a period being extended ;-) But
the business needs to know the minimum EoL for a given release to
determine if upgrading to that release is viable.
--
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]"
