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

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> Upgrading your systems to 6.3 takes _precisely_ the same amount
> of work as upgrading to "6-STABLE as of today 00:00 GMT".

No, it doesn't.  You can get to 6.3 with freebsd-update.  And you can  
stay patched with freebsd-update on a -RELEASE.  For a corporation to  
choose to stick with -RELEASE makes perfect sense, and it specifically  
what the -RELEASE versions were intended for.

> You may want to pick a different point of time, but it really
> doesn't matter, because a release _is_ just a CVS branch created
> at a certain time.

>> This is why EoLing 6.2 and forcing people to upgrade to a release
>> with lots of known issues is a problem.
>
> People who have issues with RELENG_6_3 should upgrade to RELENG_6
> which is perfectly supported.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't run RELENG_6 on anything.  I run it  
on two home computers, and grabbing it on any given day and trying to  
run with it in production is insanity.  Lots and lots of things are  
committed, reverted, recommitted, reverted and then finally  
redesigned.  Each of those steps are often committed to the source  
tree.  The -RELEASE versions prevent this kind of insanity.

I'm struggling to find a phrase here that can't be taken to be an  
insult, so forgive me and try to understand when I say that you really  
should try watching the cvs tree for a bit before making a nonsense  
comment like that.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness