From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jun 3 16:44:33 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E306B68E02 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:44:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from host64.kissl.de (host64.kissl.de [213.239.241.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "*.shmhost.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343FB180E for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:44:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from franco@lastsummer.de) Received: from francos-mbp.homeoffice.local (ipservice-092-217-236-241.092.217.pools.vodafone-ip.de [92.217.236.241]) (Authenticated sender: web104p1) by host64.kissl.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADC16600C8; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:44:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: old ports/packages From: Franco Fichtner In-Reply-To: <20160603172313.3b2353b0@raksha.tavi.co.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:44:34 +0200 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <03cc4012-026e-c007-09e1-ee45524f1b95@elischer.org> <1FAFDF989841D03604BB448B@atuin.in.mat.cc> <7b8d22c6-1fed-d517-9f89-693b88dfc358@freebsd.org> <20160504070341.GV740@mail0.byshenk.net> <3dfd6fea-da32-b922-65d1-f64b8e113112@toco-domains.de> <6e340f95-6d10-4991-0cd6-95d336e2f044@gjunka.com> <3e55c7d8-801c-a2b3-e92e-9945e896142b@toco-domains.de> <5809f808-8b16-93ed-5351-828a7d68eb2b@unsane.co.uk> <574ED144.1050603@quip.cz> <9D785F08-AB0B-4324-B1B3-286D90AF9BF7@lastsummer.de> <20160603172313.3b2353b0@raksha.tavi.co.uk> To: Bob Eager X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at host64.kissl.de X-Virus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 16:44:33 -0000 > On 03 Jun 2016, at 6:23 PM, Bob Eager wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200 > Franco Fichtner wrote: > >> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a >> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months >> after our initial release in order to receive official security >> updates. Worst case it takes a few months to adapt to the >> major transition so that's 12 months minus X months of internal >> engineering, depending on your staff expertise. In that case >> we started in 2014, took us 4 months, that's 6 months including >> the time 10.0 was officially available, so 6 months left for >> support, when you actually start adapting to 10 as soon as it >> comes out. For many that's a luxury not going to happen. One >> can blame anyone for starting late, but it's not going to solve >> the real world problem. >> >> 10.1 went really well. When 10.2 happened for us in January >> 2016, however, we've already went testing 3 months before and >> had a number of issues that were not being addressed upstream >> for a longer amount of time: > > Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a > longer support cycle. Why release even-numbered at all then? To get better odds? :) On a more serious note, that was actually the bottom line of internal discussions: wait longer, do less. Not sure if this is the best thing for FreeBSD as a whole to let others sit these ones out. Cheers, Franco