Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 28 Nov 2022 00:20:49 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
To:        Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: How much to remove from UPDATING (was: Re: git: ff0c7816db69 - main - Remove UPDATING entries from old branches.)
Message-ID:  <CANCZdfpT-GSr0aTvEH-w5B_6SP06u3tAvNtCiKY3JM9QzQ4DZA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221128073445.Horde.UA46E1-_SRAS-yFXkM8r5q7@webmail.leidinger.net>
References:  <202211250923.2AP9NakT073087@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CANCZdfq%2BAVGWa91Cv80t60jKAmw0UwoTVNFeOGRjOhAPjsJH%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20221127223531.Horde.3qMyxtWhJEa3tXdg500ge5g@webmail.leidinger.net> <CANCZdfruzk8Ruxo7MQ3zTwNZbow0i%2BBdvunqNV5mM=FK-WDGAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfqDuCQS26_2VSSG9Pyw9QrTeRtY%2Bx3Wn48UhXGvCyKcQQ@mail.gmail.com> <20221128073445.Horde.UA46E1-_SRAS-yFXkM8r5q7@webmail.leidinger.net>

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 11:34 PM Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>
wrote:

> Quoting Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> (from Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:12:08
> -0700):
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:17 PM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> (from Fri, 25 Nov 2022 09:41:28
>>> -0700):
>>>
>>> > Please revert this. We keep older updating entries on purpose. You
>>> purged
>>> > way too much. Let's chat about how much to remove in arch@. They are
>>> for
>>> > more than just source updates, so your reasoning is wrong. They are
>>> also
>>> > there for users updating their products which can have a larger leap in
>>> > time. We've traditionally kept closer to 5-10 years here for that
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Reverted.
>>>
>>> UPDATING as far back as stable/10 (= 4 major updates) is a little bit
>>> excessive (more than 9 years of development work so far), isn't it?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. It's about one release too old, maybe two. More on one or two in a
>> bit.
>>
>>
>>> I don't get the "more than just src updates" part. If we don't talk
>>> about the source code, isn't src/UPATING not the wrong place to store
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> More than just 'make buildworld updating' or ''updating a system from src'
>> is what I mean.
>>
>>
>>> In terms of updating products, I understand that updating them every 2
>>> years may be a little bit expensive/excessive for some vendors, but
>>> taking every UPDATING from every stable branch in-between doesn't look
>>> too much time consuming to me. And compared to the huge amount of
>>> changes between N-2 and N... taking UPDATING from all stable branches
>>> in-beteen is nothing. Nevertheless, 4-5 years I consider OK-ish,
>>> nearly 10 years is ... ugh ... a life-time or two in the computer
>>> world. If we look e.g. at the PlayStation (yes, just one of the
>>> products which has FreeBSD inside, but personally I consider it one of
>>> the more stable ones than some network products which have a shorter
>>> shelf-time than the PS-line from an OS-version-tracking point of
>>> view), there are around 6 years in-between models, and they surely
>>> haven't started developing a month before the release date.
>>>
>>
>> So, let's look at what it's used for to see how much we need. If you
>> look at it that way, you'll see that we're not crazy lagging.
>>
>>
>>> So where do we draw the line for UPDATING, 2 major versions (~4
>>> years), 3 major versions (~6 years)? ~10 years (~5 major versions)
>>> looks overly excessive to me. That's not something you want to try to
>>> catch up, that's rather a new development than a catch-up
>>>
>>
>> OK. Traditionally we've lagged a major release or two from what's
>> officially supported by the project. Right now the 10.x stuff is
>> definitely
>> too old. The 11.x stuff is borderline (but likely relevant), the 12.x
>> stuff
>> is still quite relevant.
>>
>> We need to look at who is updating. Many people have only recently
>> updated from 11. Almost everybody has updated from 10 by now. Lots
>> of people are using 12 and it's still supported.
>>
>> Most of the folks that have source products with lots of changes have
>> updated to at least 12 as far as I've been able to tell. But many haven't
>> jumped to 13 or current yet.
>>
>> There are many people still updating their VMs from 11. Traditionally,
>> they
>> wait until after 11.x goes unsupported before they update. It's only been
>> unsupported for just over 1 year. In the past, this is where upgrading is
>> hitting full speed (I've received feedback in the past at conferences that
>> people often put it off for up to 18 months)... 10.x has been unsupported
>> for more than 3 years, so historically everybody has moved on. So the
>>
>
> I can't do math.... More than 4 years...
>
>
>> 10.x entries are definitely stale... The 11 entries are on the edge...
>> I'd
>> normally have removed the 10.x entries when 13 was branched, but
>> I was asleep at the wheel this time.... Though looking at the logs, I've
>> been not so great about this. Better at some times, worse at others....
>>
>
>
>> So in my opinion, 10.x entries should have already been gone. 11.x
>> entries are likely useful enough to keep, but they are waning fast. 12.x
>> entries are likely being used all the time by people upgrading from
>> still-supported
>> releases. We've traditionally weighted towards retention because the
>> cost of retention has been super low.
>>
>> This suggests we delete up to the 11 branch point now, and to the 12
>> branch point when 14 branches in 6 months or so...
>>
>
> 13.x was branched about 6.5 years ago. When 14 is branched, it will be
> 7 years and we'll removing the to the 12 branch point which will be
> four and half years. This seems like a good range to oscillate between.
>
>
> If I understand it correctly, you want to target a policy of:
> Just before the branch of stable/N we remove old entries from UPDATING and
> keep the data of N-2 branches = deleting the data of N-3.
>
> stable/14 -> keep 13+12 and delete 11.
>
> Basically we both are aligned and think N-2 is on the edge. I don't mind
> to live with this edge...
>
> Do we want to document that somewhere? RE-tasklist? Inside UPDATING (top
> or bottom)?
>
> What about removing the entries of 10? Now or with next branch? I would
> vote to do it now, what's done is done.
>

I think we should remove entries before the 11 branch now. I'll create a
review with that.

Warner

[-- Attachment #2 --]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 11:34 PM Alexander Leidinger &lt;<a href="mailto:netchild@freebsd.org">netchild@freebsd.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>





<div style="font-family:Arial;font-size:14px">
<p>Quoting Warner Losh &lt;<a href="mailto:imp@bsdimp.com" target="_blank">imp@bsdimp.com</a>&gt; (from Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:12:08 -0700):</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:2px;padding-left:12px" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:17 PM Warner Losh &lt;<a href="mailto:imp@bsdimp.com" target="_blank">imp@bsdimp.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_attr" dir="ltr">On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alexander Leidinger &lt;<a href="mailto:netchild@freebsd.org" target="_blank">netchild@freebsd.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>Quoting Warner Losh &lt;<a href="mailto:imp@bsdimp.com" target="_blank">imp@bsdimp.com</a>&gt; (from Fri, 25 Nov 2022 09:41:28 -0700):<br>
<br>
&gt; Please revert this. We keep older updating entries on purpose. You purged<br>
&gt; way too much. Let&#39;s chat about how much to remove in arch@. They are for<br>
&gt; more than just source updates, so your reasoning is wrong. They are also<br>
&gt; there for users updating their products which can have a larger leap in<br>
&gt; time. We&#39;ve traditionally kept closer to 5-10 years here for that reason.<br>
<br>
Reverted.<br>
<br>
UPDATING as far back as stable/10 (= 4 major updates) is a little bit <br>
excessive (more than 9 years of development work so far), isn&#39;t it?</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes. It&#39;s about one release too old, maybe two. More on one or two in a bit.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>I don&#39;t get the &quot;more than just src updates&quot; part. If we don&#39;t talk <br>
about the source code, isn&#39;t src/UPATING not the wrong place to store <br>
it?</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>More than just &#39;make buildworld updating&#39; or &#39;&#39;updating a system from src&#39;</div>
<div>is what I mean.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>In terms of updating products, I understand that updating them every 2 <br>
years may be a little bit expensive/excessive for some vendors, but <br>
taking every UPDATING from every stable branch in-between doesn&#39;t look <br>
too much time consuming to me. And compared to the huge amount of <br>
changes between N-2 and N... taking UPDATING from all stable branches <br>
in-beteen is nothing. Nevertheless, 4-5 years I consider OK-ish, <br>
nearly 10 years is ... ugh ... a life-time or two in the computer <br>
world. If we look e.g. at the PlayStation (yes, just one of the <br>
products which has FreeBSD inside, but personally I consider it one of <br>
the more stable ones than some network products which have a shorter <br>
shelf-time than the PS-line from an OS-version-tracking point of <br>
view), there are around 6 years in-between models, and they surely <br>
haven&#39;t started developing a month before the release date.</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>So, let&#39;s look at what it&#39;s used for to see how much we need. If you</div>
<div>look at it that way, you&#39;ll see that we&#39;re not crazy lagging.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<p>So where do we draw the line for UPDATING, 2 major versions (~4 <br>
years), 3 major versions (~6 years)? ~10 years (~5 major versions) <br>
looks overly excessive to me. That&#39;s not something you want to try to <br>
catch up, that&#39;s rather a new development than a catch-up</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>OK. Traditionally we&#39;ve lagged a major release or two from what&#39;s</div>
<div>officially supported by the project. Right now the 10.x stuff is definitely</div>
<div>too old. The 11.x stuff is borderline (but likely relevant), the 12.x stuff</div>
<div>is still quite relevant.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We need to look at who is updating. Many people have only recently</div>
<div>updated from 11. Almost everybody has updated from 10 by now. Lots</div>
<div>of people are using 12 and it&#39;s still supported.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Most of the folks that have source products with lots of changes have</div>
<div>updated to at least 12 as far as I&#39;ve been able to tell. But many haven&#39;t</div>
<div>jumped to 13 or current yet.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are many people still updating their VMs from 11. Traditionally, they</div>
<div>wait until after 11.x goes unsupported before they update. It&#39;s only been</div>
<div>unsupported for just over 1 year. In the past, this is where upgrading is</div>
<div>hitting full speed (I&#39;ve received feedback in the past at conferences that</div>
<div>people often put it off for up to 18 months)... 10.x has been unsupported</div>
<div>for more than 3 years, so historically everybody has moved on. So the</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I can&#39;t do math.... More than 4 years...</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>10.x entries are definitely stale... The 11 entries are on the edge...  I&#39;d</div>
<div>normally have removed the 10.x entries when 13 was branched, but</div>
<div>I was asleep at the wheel this time.... Though looking at the logs, I&#39;ve</div>
<div>been not so great about this. Better at some times, worse at others....</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>So in my opinion, 10.x entries should have already been gone. 11.x</div>
<div>entries are likely useful enough to keep, but they are waning fast. 12.x</div>
<div>entries are likely being used all the time by people upgrading from still-supported</div>
<div>releases. We&#39;ve traditionally weighted towards retention because the</div>
<div>cost of retention has been super low.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This suggests we delete up to the 11 branch point now, and to the 12</div>
<div>branch point when 14 branches in 6 months or so...</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>13.x was branched about 6.5 years ago. When 14 is branched, it will be</div>
<div>7 years and we&#39;ll removing the to the 12 branch point which will be</div>
<div>four and half years. This seems like a good range to oscillate between.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
If I understand it correctly, you want to target a policy of:<br>
Just before the branch of stable/N we remove old entries from UPDATING and keep the data of N-2 branches = deleting the data of N-3.<br>
<br>
stable/14 -&gt; keep 13+12 and delete 11.<br>
<br>
Basically we both are aligned and think N-2 is on the edge. I don&#39;t mind to live with this edge...<br>
<br>
Do we want to document that somewhere? RE-tasklist? Inside UPDATING (top or bottom)?<br>
<br>
What about removing the entries of 10? Now or with next branch? I would vote to do it now, what&#39;s done is done.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think we should remove entries before the 11 branch now. I&#39;ll create a review with that.</div><div><br></div><div>Warner <br></div></div></div>
help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpT-GSr0aTvEH-w5B_6SP06u3tAvNtCiKY3JM9QzQ4DZA>