From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 06:20:11 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 10BBB106566C for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:20:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from kozubik.com (kozubik.com [216.218.240.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BF18FC1A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kozubik.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kozubik.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0H6K8LV038349; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:20:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from localhost (john@localhost) by kozubik.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id q0H6K3Sn038346; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:20:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:20:03 -0800 (PST) From: John Kozubik To: Steven Hartland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:20:11 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Steven Hartland wrote: >> I was disappointed to see that 8.3-RELEASE is now slated to come out in >> March of 2012. This will be ~13 months since 8.2-RELEASE and is typical of >> a trend towards longer gaps between minor releases. > > ... > > I must say as a small company that runs ~200 machines on FreeBSD > I do see where John is coming from, as it is very time consuming to keep > things up to date and new is not always better e.g. we still have boxes > stuck on 6.x as issues introduced in the Linux compat after that caused > problems. > > That said I'm in two minds as the features that have been brought in by > the more rapid dev cycle like ZFS have been great. The features are great - nobody doesn't want the features! Like I said in the original post, as wonderful as ZFS on FreeBSD is (and we are deploying it this year) it is only now (well, in March) with 8.3 that I feel it is finally safe and stable enough to bet the farm on. I'm not the only one that feels this way. If that's the case, then, ZFS could have been developed just as it has, in a development branch, and not been used as justification for (mutiple) major releases and all of their disruption. As I said in the original post - we should be on 6.12 right now, and bringing out 7.0, with ZFS v28. > Where I do see an issue is where it feels like we've just got to a solid > 8.2 release with p6 and some addition patches we see things like em driver > updates required to run newer hardware only in 9. That's a few releases in a row now where "legacy" gets locked out of new motherboards because of em(4). But I digress... > While we might like to push everything to 9 it brings with it a large > amount of untested changes like the HPN patches to core ssh which we > have seen problems with under openssh-portable when tested. > > So this puts us in a dilemma, push to 9 and keep up to date or stick > with 8.2 with custom patches while we wait for 8.3 which we know is > good and assuming it has the patches need included in it? Exactly. We're in the same boat. Longer, dedicated lifecycle, extended legacy support, and more frequent minor releases were my original suggestions. Why not take the "newer production release" (or whatever 9.0 is) and rename it "development" ? Why couldn't this change happen today, specifically with 8.x and 9.x ?