From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 17:56:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6C81065672 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:56:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from kozubik.com (kozubik.com [216.218.240.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71568FC18 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kozubik.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kozubik.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0HHuck5045522; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:56:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from localhost (john@localhost) by kozubik.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id q0HHuXT8045519; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:56:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:56:33 -0800 (PST) From: John Kozubik To: Tom Evans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:56:39 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras 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.