Regarding latest errata

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
  [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Theo de Raadt-2
Patrick Harper <[hidden email]> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Solène RAPENNE-2
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 <a href="63.html">OpenBSD 6.3</a>, released Apr 2, 2018.
---
>       The current release is <a href="63.html">OpenBSD 6.3</a>, released Apr 15, 2018.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Patrick Harper
In reply to this post by Theo de Raadt-2
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
  [hidden email]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> Patrick Harper <[hidden email]> 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.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Theo de Raadt-2
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
>   [hidden email]
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Patrick Harper <[hidden email]> 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.
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
  [hidden email]

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
> >   [hidden email]
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Patrick Harper <[hidden email]> 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.
> > >
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Theo de Raadt-2
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
  [hidden email]

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.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regarding latest errata

Theo de Raadt-2
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
>   [hidden email]
>
> 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.
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
  [hidden email]

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
> >   [hidden email]
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> >