From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 27 04:09:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A5416A41C for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:09:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD9743D1D for ; Fri, 27 May 2005 04:09:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4R4BN8b046881; Thu, 26 May 2005 22:11:23 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <42969D28.6070306@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:08:08 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francisco Reyes References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org> <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net> In-Reply-To: <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Mike Jakubik , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 04:09:28 -0000 Francisco Reyes wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Scott Long wrote: > >> Again, please don't take the abrupt switch to 6.0 to mean that 5.x is >> flawed or that 6.x will also have a short lifespan. The real purpose >> of the switch is nothing but positive; it'll keep us focused and prevent >> us from overreaching and overextending ourselves. It's a very good >> and very postive strategy. > > > So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with? > Why not just stay in 5.X name wise? I really should have given 5.3 the name of 6.0. I considered it at the time, but decided not to for some insane reason. > > Is there a thread that sheds some light on that topic? > Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years? Yes. This will allow us to pace our major development projects much better than we have in the past. Thus, a ".0" release becomes less of a major event with lofty goals, and more of a snapshot of where our technology is at the time. There will still be goals and major projects, but I don't want us to go through another exercise of spending 4+ years on loosely defined goals that grow out of bounds. Scott