Re: Regarding latest errata

[Patrick Harper]

I agree. Your initial response was all I needed, I thought I needed more 
because I'm an absolutist.

-- 
  Patrick Harper
  paia...@fastmail.com

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 10:28, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> What a futile and pointless discussion.
> 
> > Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active'
> > from the 2nd to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates
> > are now censored on the website, but if it had been built for the
> > projected date then it would not have needed the 14th patches.
> >
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Patrick Harper
> >   paia...@fastmail.com
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > > What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the
> > > > door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active
> > > > releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's
> > > > projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a
> > > > possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not
> > > > be practically avoidable.
> > > 
> > > You are making stuff up.
> > > 
> > 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Theo de Raadt]

What a futile and pointless discussion.

> Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active'
> from the 2nd to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates
> are now censored on the website, but if it had been built for the
> projected date then it would not have needed the 14th patches.
>
> 
> -- 
>   Patrick Harper
>   paia...@fastmail.com
> 
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the
> > > door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active
> > > releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's
> > > projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a
> > > possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not
> > > be practically avoidable.
> > 
> > You are making stuff up.
> > 
> 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Patrick Harper]

Assuming that is the case, was it 6.3 or 6.1 that was not 'active' from the 2nd 
to the 15th? Conveniently the original 6.3 release dates are now censored on 
the website, but if it had been built for the projected date then it would not 
have needed the 14th patches.

-- 
  Patrick Harper
  paia...@fastmail.com

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the
> > door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active
> > releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's
> > projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a
> > possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not
> > be practically avoidable.
> 
> You are making stuff up.
> 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Theo de Raadt]

> What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the
> door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active
> releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's
> projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a
> possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not
> be practically avoidable.

You are making stuff up.

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Patrick Harper]

What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the door 
(2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active releases and the 
project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's projected release date. My 
previous post attempted to review a possible workaround, though I suspect this 
sort of anomaly might not be practically avoidable.

(Theo received this twice, sorry)

-- 
  Patrick Harper
  paia...@fastmail.com

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:19, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Huh?  We've told everyone 2 releases maintained with errata/syspatches,
> 6 months apart, only.  Nothing changed here.  We don't need to
> change a single word about EOL.  It is exactly the same as before.
> 
> > The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and
> > implementing oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would
> > kill enough time in building patches to be worth a process change, and
> > users would have to trade patches for contingency. Make of this
> > whatever you will, I don't know what is more important.
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Patrick Harper
> >   paia...@fastmail.com
> > 
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Patrick Harper  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first
> > > > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that
> > > > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the
> > > > lifecycle process?
> > > 
> > > No it does not indicate that.
> > > 
> > > Official release date of 6.3 is April 15.  Yes, the release went out
> > > the door early, but the *official* date is April 15.
> > > 
> > > Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be
> > > running on the day before the *official* release day.
> > > 
> > > We only support 2 active releases.  Pulling this trick out of our hat
> > > was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again.  Thanks to
> > > robert and tb.
> > > 
> > 
> 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Theo de Raadt]

Huh?  We've told everyone 2 releases maintained with errata/syspatches,
6 months apart, only.  Nothing changed here.  We don't need to
change a single word about EOL.  It is exactly the same as before.

> The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and
> implementing oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would
> kill enough time in building patches to be worth a process change, and
> users would have to trade patches for contingency. Make of this
> whatever you will, I don't know what is more important.
> 
> -- 
>   Patrick Harper
>   paia...@fastmail.com
> 
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Patrick Harper  wrote:
> > 
> > > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first
> > > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that
> > > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the
> > > lifecycle process?
> > 
> > No it does not indicate that.
> > 
> > Official release date of 6.3 is April 15.  Yes, the release went out
> > the door early, but the *official* date is April 15.
> > 
> > Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be
> > running on the day before the *official* release day.
> > 
> > We only support 2 active releases.  Pulling this trick out of our hat
> > was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again.  Thanks to
> > robert and tb.
> > 
> 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Patrick Harper]

The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and implementing 
oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would kill enough time in 
building patches to be worth a process change, and users would have to trade 
patches for contingency. Make of this whatever you will, I don't know what is 
more important.

-- 
  Patrick Harper
  paia...@fastmail.com

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Patrick Harper  wrote:
> 
> > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first
> > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that
> > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the
> > lifecycle process?
> 
> No it does not indicate that.
> 
> Official release date of 6.3 is April 15.  Yes, the release went out
> the door early, but the *official* date is April 15.
> 
> Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be
> running on the day before the *official* release day.
> 
> We only support 2 active releases.  Pulling this trick out of our hat
> was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again.  Thanks to
> robert and tb.
> 

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Solene Rapenne]

Theo de Raadt writes:

> Official release date of 6.3 is April 15.  Yes, the release went out
> the door early, but the *official* date is April 15.

The release date is wrong in index.html, following patch fix the date to
April 15 th.

Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/www/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.724
diff -r1.724 index.html
107c107
<   The current release is OpenBSD 6.3, released Apr 
2, 2018.
---
>   The current release is OpenBSD 6.3, released Apr 
> 15, 2018.

Re: Regarding latest errata

[Theo de Raadt]

Patrick Harper  wrote:

> Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first
> that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that
> 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the
> lifecycle process?

No it does not indicate that.

Official release date of 6.3 is April 15.  Yes, the release went out
the door early, but the *official* date is April 15.

Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be
running on the day before the *official* release day.

We only support 2 active releases.  Pulling this trick out of our hat
was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again.  Thanks to
robert and tb.

Regarding latest errata

[Patrick Harper]

Hi All,

Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first that has 
been applied to more than two releases, implying that 6.1-stable is still 
supported. Does this signify a change to the lifecycle process?

Regards,

-- 
  Patrick Harper
  paia...@fastmail.com