Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:28:39 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <4F162E57.5020607@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMXt9NYjKc5UZZcr6FOFcFqQ8Seox5esoYCU=YKT-Bs=tynW1Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <op.v78i3yxi34t2sn@tech304> <4F15B1AA.4020400@my.gd> <4F15C520.6090200@freebsd.org> <CAMXt9NYjKc5UZZcr6FOFcFqQ8Seox5esoYCU=YKT-Bs=tynW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/17/12 12:11 PM, Mark Saad wrote: > Here are My 2 Cents , > > 1. Support each release longer, or develop a better way to MFS ( Merge > from Stable ) bug fixes, and driver updates to RELEASE. It always > seams that there are a number of things in X-STABLE I would love to > have in X.3-RELEASE and X.4-RELEASE, and I do not want all of X-STABLE > just some new drivers and fixes . > > 2. Spell out the entire RELEASE road map at the beginning of the > release. So for 9.0-RELEASE set tentative dates for 9.1, 9.2, 9.x etc > . I think by the ".2" release of a line we should have some idea as to whether a particular lineage is going to provide a good basis for extended life. if for example we were to declare that 8 is really quite good, we might decide to declare it as having a longer life and allow 9 to die earlier as we go forward. I do understand the requirement for a stable basis for work but I can not say how many of the changes for newer hardware will get ported back. or by who. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F162E57.5020607>