Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tony Fleisher <takhus@takhus.mind.net>
To:        Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Ralph Huntington <rjh@mohawk.net>
Subject:   Re: Stable branch
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010052129500.29738-100000@takhus-home.ashlandfn.org>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001005105420.04a7b540@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Brett Glass wrote:

> At 04:06 AM 10/5/2000, Ralph Huntington wrote:
> 
> >Stable branch is very important for production use and should incorporate
> >bug fixes and security patches, but not feature enhancements. The extent
> >of support and maintenance for stable should be one major release prior to
> >the latest release (not current), i.e., since 4.x-RELEASE is the latest,
> >then 3.x-STABLE hould be supported with bug fixes and security patches
> >until a 5.x-RELEASE is out.
> >
> >Does this seem unreasonable?            -=r=-
> 
> 
> Perhaps this should be formalized as three branches:
> 
> Branch  name:           Bug/security    New features?   "Breakable" for
>                        fixes?                           a day or more?
> 
> -PRODUCTION             YES             NO              NO
> 
> -STABLE                 YES             YES, PREFERABLY NO
>                                         AFTER TESTING   
>                                         IN -CURRENT
> 
> -DEVELOPMENT           YES              YES             YES
> (formerly -CURRENT)
> 
> What do you think of this as a model for what people seem to be
> asking for?
> 
> --Brett

I have been watching this thread, and I was just about to write in
suggesting nearly this exact same model when I saw your post. 

It certainly seems that there are two very distinct groups of people
tracking -stable: those wanting new features, new hardware, etc., and
those wanting simply updates for security patches and bug fixes. 

It seems that there are enough people in both groups that are not willing
to deal with all the risks that -current brings with it that dividing
-stable into two tracks seems to be the only solution to meet the
needs/desires of these two groups.

I also agree that support and, at least security related, maintenance
should continue for one major release back, as suggested by Ralph
previously. It seems that this is not too much to ask (in fact seems to be
happening already, based on the MFCs to RELENG_3), and making that the
"official" position may help FreeBSD gain more support in the corporate
environments where an upgrade every six months is really not feasible.

Just my thoughts,

TOny.




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010052129500.29738-100000>