From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 20:21:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118A7106564A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:21:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from mwi1.coffeenet.org (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EFF8FC0A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:21:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; s=blargle; h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:To:Content-Type; bh=LJRlV0SK06vonekfOPQS21JGphWCFeBZAhMR1BmACSs=; b=lw02tuw7ll77Hd8jP6e2tmuQj4J0BNoyUqReJWM/RiRiz7A6mF6Of2PP49rv6Iznm+xbjpn+Av7Ak53apSlE8ceRGIwHsLNzvt8M8E6obUb3JkdjZ0QUZZID0pL2Spge; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org) by mwi1.coffeenet.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Rnc0E-0000tK-Gd for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:21:04 -0600 Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1326918056-2798-2797/5/8; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:20:56 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:20:56 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Felder Message-Id: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (FreeBSD) X-SA-Score: -1.0 Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:21:05 -0000 On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:46:45 -0600, John Kozubik wrote: > > And as long as we're repeating ... :) > > Since 9.0 is already out of the bag, I think a decent approach would be > to fizzle out 8.x on the current timeline/trajectory (maybe 8.4 in 6-8 > months, and maybe 8.5 in a year or so), then: > > - EOL 7 > - mark 8 as legacy > - mark 9 as the _only_ production release > - release 10.0 in January 2017 > > And in the meantime, begin the every 4-6 month minor releases that we > all agree can occur with 9. By Jan 2017, you get to 9.12 or 9.14 or so. > > This is nice because no upheaval needs to happen with 7 and 8, and > interested developers do not get kneecapped vis a vis 9 - they can just > keep going where they were going with it, and the only real change is > that 10 is pushed out a long ways, and people[1] get to really sink > their teeth into 9. > What are the policies for changes though? Are we stuck with 9.0's feature set for 5 years? Will we have to wait 5 years to get a stable release of FreeBSD with KMS/GEM? That work is unfinished and didn't make 9.0; it's also a huge changeset. How will things like this be dealt with? Five years is a long time for the next stable release if we have a policy to not import major changes from -CURRENT. It would be devastating to so many users.