Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:53:25 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: release cycle Message-ID: <465C84B5.10500@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <465C49B5.8080003@freebsd.org> References: <465BF62B.6090904@vwsoft.com> <20070529102929.GA49322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <465C06CE.6000703@delphij.net> <465C4624.5020004@freebsd.org> <465C49B5.8080003@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival wrote: > Bruce A. Mah wrote: >> We've done point releases in the past but only in cases where there were >> severe problems and/or regressions with released versions. Look at the >> announcements and release notes for 4.6.2-RELEASE and >> 5.2.1-RELEASE...these were the two most recent instances where we did >> this. There's a reason for this...it's a lot of effort. >> >> Folks should realize that making a new release (even a new point >> release) is not just a matter of tagging the tree and typing "make >> release". We (re@) need to figure out exactly what bugs are to be >> fixed, get the changes merged and tested, build at least one release >> candidate, get that tested, and finally build a set of RELEASE bits and >> push them out. > > I point releases have been obsoleted by errata notices. In the past when > X.Y.Z-RELEASE has happened, it has been because of critical bugs in the > X.Y-RELEASE which there wasn't any other mechanism to fix. Now that we > have errata noticed and FreeBSD Update is in the base system, it's vastly > easier for users to run "freebsd-update fetch install" than it is for them > to upgrade to a new release. > Not really. 5.2.1 existed because people were having problems getting 5.2 installed on their ATA disks. If you have big problems with storage or network, freebsd-update isn't going to be of much use to you. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465C84B5.10500>