Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: John Kozubik <john@kozubik.com> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201170952440.19710@kozubik.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFHbX1%2Bi3JwCCBmqtOsW6m74VpDBSAmBOt7CPcCGAPCO2DBDkA@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <jf3mps$is3$1@dough.gmane.org> <CAFHbX1%2Bi3JwCCBmqtOsW6m74VpDBSAmBOt7CPcCGAPCO2DBDkA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: >> I've concluded very early that because of what I've said above, the only way >> to run FreeBSD effectively is to track -STABLE. The developers MFC-ing stuff >> usually try hard not to break things so -STABLE has become a sort of >> "running RELEASE" branch. Since -STABLE is so ... stable ..., there is less >> and less incentive to make proper releases (though I think nobody would mind >> it happening). >> >> The next question is: what do releases from a -STABLE branch bring in that >> simply tracking the original -STABLE tree doesn't? Lately, not very much. > > Sorry to just pick out bits of your email Ivan? > > Ability to use freebsd-update. It would be better to have more > frequent releases. As a prime example, ZFS became much more stable > about 3 months after 8.2 was released. If you were waiting for an 8.x > release that supported that improved version of ZFS, you are still > waiting. Ding! It's amazing how many people are in the exact same boats - waiting for 8.3, getting locked out of new motherboards because em(4) can't be "backported" to even the production release... > You say that snapshots of STABLE are stable and effectively a running > release branch, so why can't more releases be made? > > Is the release process too complex for minor revisions, could that be > improved to make it easier to have more releases, eg by not bundling > ports packages? Thanks, Tom. I'm calling for some changes that, culturally, might be impossible, but a lot of pain would be avoided if more regular minor releases (3 per year) were made.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1201170952440.19710>