From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 20:50:19 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 1F0D8106564A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:50:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from mwi1.coffeenet.org (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAAC08FC0A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:50:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; s=blargle; h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:To:Content-Type; bh=nciCrABLJNyndWX/f2y9DIGoaGsoi/igXEu2v104CqA=; b=AUlH9nSC8q7uYDmVRRAqzUIFDsoiDD9RkRFnByjjs41ID4vy+IGbX1EGf8K3f51Qi4zlkQHStSamNxIcw1jFQI7MzzvRPUWXUPOBlXBr0lf336s5PYVAhqr6l27fcTMq; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org) by mwi1.coffeenet.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RnFyw-0008bH-GO for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:50:18 -0600 Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1326833408-88972-88971/5/23; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:50:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <4F15B1AA.4020400@my.gd> <4F15C520.6090200@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:50:08 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Felder Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4F15C520.6090200@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (FreeBSD) X-SA-Score: -1.0 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 20:50:19 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:59:44 -0600, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 1/17/12 9:36 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > having run -stable on production systems, the way to do it is: > > * follow -stable.. > * pick a time that IN RETROSPECT (from 1 month later) looks as though it > was good. > * take a snapshot from that time and test it. > * if it has problems MOVE FORWARD (not back) to the next candidate > snapshot time. > * repeat until you have one that works for you > This is also the way I've had it explained to me. Note, I'm currently not running anything -STABLE in production right now simply because I don't have that need. I did for a while last year, but not now. I'm deploying two ZFS SANs based on 9 early February. It might be on -RELEASE with manual backports of the gmultipath rewrite (required) and also I am considering the fixes for CDROM access (CAM stuff). I've seen several other things hit -STABLE right after the freeze ended early January which surprise me that they weren't included in -RELEASE and we didn't have another RC. I definitely see the frustration being expressed here, but I personally am comfortable running -STABLE. Many people are not and it is unfortunate that they will be left waiting until 9.1-RELEASE (probably late summer?). I hope a compromise will be found. I'm clearly in the minority that is OK with the current situation. To be fair, it could be worse -- OpenBSD secretly wants you to run snapshots and CURRENT as the RELEASEs are mostly unmaintained outside of the most extreme security concerns. Even the packages are kept at the exact version of the time of release. Well to be honest, Theo doesn't want me running OpenBSD at all. :-) -Previously Flamed User