From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Dec 22 23:26:04 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78B21065675;
	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:26:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from panix.lovett.com (panix.lovett.com [166.84.7.128])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1B48FC0A;
	Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:26:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cpe-66-68-128-204.austin.res.rr.com ([66.68.128.204]
	helo=[172.16.32.150])
	by panix.lovett.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <ade@FreeBSD.org>)
	id 1PVXZz-0007Dj-W2; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:54:44 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <201012220942.26579.jhb@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:54:27 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1619C89A-904D-4C1E-BD53-75763E7A8CB0@FreeBSD.org>
References: <DB4D8AC7-25D6-4901-BBF9-77BEB956840B@cederstrand.dk>
	<201012220852.oBM8q2Qi039123@lurza.secnetix.de>
	<20101222123834.GN23098@acme.spoerlein.net>
	<201012220942.26579.jhb@freebsd.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ulrich_Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>,
	Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>,
	Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Schedule for releases
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:26:04 -0000


On Dec 22, 2010, at 08:42 , John Baldwin wrote:
> Actually, CURRENT+STABLE+STABLE doesn't really work for the vendors =
either
> versus a CURRENT+STABLE where STABLE branches were created less often =
and
> lasted longer.

CURRENT+STABLE+STABLE doesn't really work too well for ports/packages =
either.  Indeed, it was only recently that it was =
CURRENT+STABLE+STABLE+STABLE .. and there are sufficient enough changes =
from 6.x->9.x (now 7.x->9.x) that causes a reasonable amount of pain.  =
'grep -R OSVERSION /usr/ports'

for infrastructure stuff (give or take):

[lab:/usr/ports] 54% grep -R OSVERSION Mk/* | grep if | wc -l
      16

for the tree as a whole:

[lab:/usr/ports] 55% grep -R OSVERSION . | grep if | wc -l
    1262

Further compounded by i386, amd64, and the few other architectures that =
get things built for them on a semi-regular basis.

Keeping packages up to date for all these combinations is, at a guess, =
an order of magnitude more time-consuming than say, 'cd /usr/src; make =
universe' and whilst the clang/llvm folks are doing an excellent job, in =
the not too distant future, ports/ will be faced with =
interesting_times.cn handling builds for two completely different base =
compilers.

Anything more than one STABLE, and one CURRENT, and folks will be =
getting upset somewhere along the way, particularly when using FreeBSD =
(src+ports/packages+doc) vs FreeBSD (src only).

-aDe