Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:30:10 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <tz@FreeBSD.org> To: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <e1096c3c-d661-7d70-0073-2439cee3c88e@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8e69aff9-4288-fe1e-53df-83a0d74fbe82@columbus.rr.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <8e69aff9-4288-fe1e-53df-83a0d74fbe82@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22.06.2017 21:26, Baho Utot wrote: > On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >> [Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin >> <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >>> As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle >>> the number >>> of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to >>> maintain, it is >>> only one branch). >> Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing >> *something*. >> >> Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new >> high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a >> headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule. Can't do >> 4 releases a year? Cut back to 2. Still too many? Cut back to >> 1. >> >> The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people >> begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your >> customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above. >> >> Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing? >> _______________________________________________ >> > > > I am looking at OpenBSD to replace FreeBSD. They have a more relaxed > update schedule and that fits with what I need. Go ahead with whatever fits your needs. But since the ports-tree is a subversion repository it is really easy to maintain the status you want. I do this for various customer and my various server. > I am looking for a system that is very stable and doesn't do the upgrade > path for the sake of it being newer. Which has various downsides. I remember for example various linux LTS distros, which only apply security fixes. I discovered various bugs which stay there for years, because they are not security issues - they just hurt you daily. :D > Having a "releng ports" version that goes with a releng version of the > OS would be great by me. Linux from scratch does this and it works > very well. It really does not work well. In everyday situation this results in "heck we need a new server to get a new version of a needed software, because we need a new linux version". I regularly seeing admins setting up different Ubuntu versions, because at one you have PHP 7 and on the other MySQL 5.7, but not both at the same Ubuntu version. Greetings, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e1096c3c-d661-7d70-0073-2439cee3c88e>