Is there any reason why releases have EoL dates after only 12 months? While it's clear that some sort of EoL is important, I can't think of any security advisories recently which weren't accompanied by patches for all the security branches, even those which are no longer officially supported. Colin Percival
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:45:50AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:> Is there any reason why releases have EoL dates after only 12 > months?They are supported by unpaid volunteers who have a limit to the amount of free time they can donate to the project. Kris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/attachments/20030824/7a31fe50/attachment.bin
At 10:03 24/08/2003 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:>On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:45:50AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > > Is there any reason why releases have EoL dates after only 12 > > months? > >They are supported by unpaid volunteers who have a limit to the amount >of free time they can donate to the project.Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. There are five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been supported. If those branches were not being supported because people were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I can see, those branches *are* being supported. Colin Percival
At 10:14 24/08/2003 -0700, I wrote:> Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. There are > five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I > have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been > supported. If those branches were not being supported because people > were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I > can see, those branches *are* being supported.Oops. As hawkeyd@visi.com has just pointed out to me, I didn't look far enough; SA-03:01, :02, :03, :05, and :06 didn't have official patches for the unsupported branches. I'll go sit quietly in the corner now. Colin Percival