challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Doug Barton]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> 
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Steven Hartland wrote:
>> I wouldn't be surprised if these are not new bugs, just something
>> that others have noticed later than 6.2 and I'd suggest you actually
>> try 6.3 to see if they are in fact an issue for you.
> 
> I don't have the resources to load up the systems enough to find these 
> problems sitting on my desk.  And I can't risk production resources for 
> problems known and reported on the *EXACT* same hardware.

Ok, then don't. Just stop whining about it. The 6.2 EOL has been 
announced from day 1 (and extended once already). If you haven't made 
adequate preparations, that's not our fault.

Furthermore, if your production environment is as overwhelmingly 
important as you make it out to be, you ought to have provisions for 
redundancy and failover already. If you don't have that, and don't 
have a testbed, that's not our fault either.

Bruce put it in much more polite terms than I have patience for atm. 
Open source software isn't "free," and if you're not interested in 
holding up your end of the bargain, explore other alternatives.

> "oh but it won't happen to me" isn't a useful methodology in a 
> production environment.
> 
> I mean, seriously, I know the majority of you are happy rebooting your 
> systems 5x daily to run the latest.  I'll do that with my home system, 
> no problem.  But I can't do this in a production environment.

Ok, then don't. But you probably ought not to insult the 
professionalism of the people that you're going to be asking for help 
again at some point.

When you do come back, your first message should contain a list of PRs 
that you're concerned about, and confirmation (per jhb's message) that 
you have the _exact_ hardware that is referred to in them. If you 
can't provide that, don't bother.

Doug

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection