On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
I mean seriously, if you were to say "We will support 6.4 for 24
months
*unless* we find it necessary to release 6.5 then I'd be totally
happy. But
that's not what is being said.
I believe that's exactly what has been said. rwatson@ and simon@ have
both made it exceedingly clear, to me anyway, that if 6.4 is to be the
last release on the 6.x branch - as appears to be likely but cannot be
stated definitely at this time, for reasons clearly given and
understood
- then it will indeed be supported for 24 months.
It doesn't seem reasonable to expect 24 months stated support for
6.4 if
it turns out not to be the last release - that would then apply to
6.5.
Have you read any of the existing thread?
Right now 6.4 will go out of support 3 months before 6.3. Which might
or might not change at some point in the future.
Isn't this obviously a fairly major problem for any business or even
any person to want to spend any time to test/evaluate/etc 6.4?
What I proposed in my message (which you completely ignored) was an
incremental support policy that builds on each release, instead of
actually promoting the idea of skipping releases. This may not be a
good idea -- it was just a toss out there, but it makes a lot more
sense than the existing policy. Could you at least respond to the
issues raised here?
--
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]"
