Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) From: John Kozubik <john@kozubik.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201171556390.19710@kozubik.com> In-Reply-To: <4F16094E.2080108@FreeBSD.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <CAJ-VmomM46xGk3R6a9G_KDxMvF5ETiSQPwv5ARxwBo90t4=x=g@mail.gmail.com> <4F16094E.2080108@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Doug, Thanks a lot for these comments and insight - response below... On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > I tried to make the point back in June that there was no reason to cut > 9.0-RELEASE yet because we don't have solid support for clang in either > the base, or ports (amongst several other reasons) and that the delay > for getting that working would be a great "excuse" for slipping the > support schedule for 8 so that we could release 9.0 not-too-long before > 7 was about to go EOL, and make the 8/9/10 release schedules fit the > new, (hopefully) more rational model. Perhaps we can reconsider that > idea for 10.0. Just previously in this thread, I suggested the following: <quote> You could progress 8.x along its current trajectory, possibly building 8.4 a year or so from now and then be done with it, and then that would be the last short/unfocused release. Then you postpone 10.0-RELEASE until January 2017. Instead of having a legacy branch and two production branches, you would have legacy (8) production (9) and ... nothing. Or if you need to have it out there, 10 is the development branch. Minor releases come out 2-3 times per year, which gets you to 9.10 or 9.15 at the end of the cycle. </quote> I wonder if this is too aggressive in that direction, or if this would be a decent balance ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1201171556390.19710>