Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:49:18 +0200 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Matt Olander <matt@ixsystems.com>, MarkLinimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: Upcoming release schedule - 8.4 ? Message-ID: <176F689D-1888-4B71-B03E-70108F464E29@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <201206131327.19688.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206111537310.19012@kozubik.com> <201206130853.32687.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmo=xPcMYo_eXAHOkVraHTZKfbExPLsrkZbGRDqhHHaKYuA@mail.gmail.com> <201206131327.19688.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Jun 2012, at 19:27, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:52:28 am Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 13 June 2012 05:53, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>=20 >>>> You don't need to change the FreeBSD culture. We'd love to do an 8.4 >>>> release. And an 8.5 release, and 8.6 release, etc. The problem is one >>>> of resources and time, not of culture/desire. >>>=20 >>> I disagree. The pace of X.0 releases is a deliberate choice FreeBSD >>> has made and directly impacts the number of "live" branches in existence= . >>> Given our developer base, we can't really support 3 branches concurrentl= y >>> (head + 2 stable like we have now with head, 9, and 8). Having longer l= ived >>> stable branches requires either increasing resources to support exising >>> releases longer, or slowing the pace of X.0 releases (but more aggressiv= ely >>> merging things from HEAD back). The latter case, especially, is part of= >>> the culture and would be a choice we as a Project would have to make. >>=20 >> Right, but I don't think the freebsd project would really mind or >> change much if more people came on board to handle legacy releases and >> support them. >>=20 >> If you're a company that uses FreeBSD stable releases, please consider >> contributing engineering resources and/or donations to the Foundation >> to improve the support of said stable releases. :) >=20 > No, that doesn't actually work. Having additional support on a stable > branch requires someone able to 1) commit changes to stable branches and > 2) be able to cut newer releases from said branches (i.e. doing the work > of re@). You cannot get that as an outside entity. It requires buy-in > from the Project itself. >=20 Jumping in. I for one, as a fbsd admin on corporate servers ( read not commiter), would d= early like less releases but a more aggressive MFC approach.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?176F689D-1888-4B71-B03E-70108F464E29>