From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 23 19:36:09 2010 Return-Path: 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 611D41065673; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284108FC12; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pxi1 with SMTP id 1so1208586pxi.13 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:36:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc :x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=UWSXIxrC5CTvH+Mfrq3zrBBXgM13InXCurtvTCyjJ8I=; b=gYNz7W6My3+XkR1W9xc0z6ZcepmtwOmkhye1RbUMcr5aIqdNliDsMxqDfvq7kXSlCj NZMf9SOnhOK1wpLZrPaqZlw/edMZsLVga7r3+4TezM8nmwN+iCg+Ibp9Q1vdq32oqI3L 7Zx/CNiXkBHJGsyHzV3V9Xx63k6h9MM9zu+L8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; b=O6FBcpTtV5g04GQiXUDCggkdLyXqjkXxwRUNLlFx2nU0aDGaAzhnJWebFm09lnkY0z pLDOfbgGms+oDWAj+kqtFPVC+4OKk1wc5BKCPs2D5n5ZpvFySErbVxCiK3eIzASLpX6a 2tdJOzwjgn8zkpA1LvAuABCFqRKV6UISnRs0I= Received: by 10.142.11.5 with SMTP id 5mr6750853wfk.312.1293132965525; Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.14.246] ([166.205.143.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w14sm11119546wfd.6.2010.12.23.11.35.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:36:02 -0800 (PST) References: <201012220852.oBM8q2Qi039123@lurza.secnetix.de> <20101222123834.GN23098@acme.spoerlein.net> <201012220942.26579.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8C148) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: <49D0851F-3145-43E4-BA22-24E4201BE496@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148) From: Garrett Cooper Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:35:44 -0800 To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= , Oliver Fromme , "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:36:09 -0000 On Dec 23, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wr= ote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:42:26 -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Wednesday, December 22, 2010 7:38:34 am Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrote: >>> I think this is the core "problem". Statistics[1] show, that most >>> developers run some form of -CURRENT and also have some machines >>> running the latest -STABLE tree. So, naturally, no-one is too >>> thrilled about testing stuff for the pre-latest -STABLE tree. >>>=20 >>> We should not try to have two stable branches overlap for that >>> long. We are spreading our resources too thin here. >>>=20 >>> CURRENT+STABLE makes sense, always. CURRENT+STABLE+STABLE might be >>> nice for vendors, but in the end it's the developers doing the work, >>> and they mostly only care about the one of the STABLES. We should not >>> delude ourselves into thinking we can easily support two STABLE >>> branches, that's just not happening. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Exactly! My intuition says that vendors don't really care if there are > two, three, or any number or 'old stable' branches. All they care is > that the stable branch they just baselined their source tree on will > live long enough for their product to ship at least a couple of GA > versions. >=20 > I've worked at companies where we built products on Solaris 8, for > example, long after the GA of Solaris 10. The fact that we had to jump > forward across two major versions was slightly painful and required a > non-negligible amount of manpower to pull it off. The fact that Solaris > 9 was also 'supported' never really played much of a role in the > decision to move to the latest release version. It was always a > feature-based decision and not a time-based one. For some groups, they are not dev resource limited, but QA resource limited,= so getting all of the core OS changes qualified and into a set of mature pr= oducts can be a real chore. This is one of the pain points for my group. -Garrett=