Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:47:45 +0200 From: demelier.david@gmail.com To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: > > My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing > > the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be > > a Really Good Thing for everyone. > > I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the > mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being > available once per release, or rolling with -head. > Quarterly branches do not solve anything. A user installs a machine on March, it uses 2017Q1. Then in April an additional software must be installed, as we are in April, 2017Q2 is available so two choices: a. the user keeps 2017Q1 but won't have any security fixes as it is not maintained anymore; possibly having security flaws. b. the user switches to 2017Q2, this tree will probably have major upgrades and possibly breaking existing stuff. To me, quarterly branches are completely useless as they are not maintained enough in time. Replacing them with release branches would solve everything explained in this thread. Regards, -- David Demelier
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1498207665.2506.4.camel>