Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:14:23 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: There is currently no usable release of FreeBSD. Message-ID: <53900ABF.6000508@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406040944570.2120@kozubik.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1406040944570.2120@kozubik.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/5/14, 12:52 AM, John Kozubik wrote: > > freebsd.org website shows the following: > > Production: 10.0 > Legacy: 9.2, 8.4 > Upcoming: 9.3 right now the best release to use in production is probably 9.2. if you are like me you would have the following: production on 9.1 or 9.2 having upgraded from 8.3 or similar about a year ago some early test systems on 10-stable getting ready for 10.1 one system on -head "just because.." > > You can't put an x.0 release into production (a bigotry that is > *well deserved* in light of 5.0 and 9.0) ... and 9.2 and 8.4 are > legacy ... and we all know that 9.3 is as far as the 9 branch is > going to go, so that's a dead end for any serious deployment. I believe you put too much emphasis on moving up a branch. .. Though I will admit the gcc -> clang change between 9.x and 10 is a bit of a worry commercially, which is why *WE* will move from [what we run now] to 10.0++ but with clang disabled and still using gcc, with a planned "minor" upgrade to 10.0++ compiled with clang about 6-9 months later. My experience upgrading customers like Bank Of America (at a previous job) showed that FreeBSD's inter-branch upgrades were usually a whole lot less trauma than upgrading a release of Windows. I also believe that FreeBSD's .0 branches are not as bad as you make out. I've used them many times. > > Let's pretend for a moment that you are going to use FreeBSD for > something other than FreeBSD development. Let's pretend that you > have customers and shareholders and boardmembers and contracts and > regulators. > > Which version of FreeBSD would you use ? as explained above.. if we were doing an upgrade now, we'd be planning for 10.1 in a few months time, but if we'd done it 6 months ago we'd have gone to 9.2 and be planning an upgrade to 10.1 in another 6-12 months. In the jobs I've had we rarely actually used the "RELEASE" exactly, but our own build of it. there is nearly always something you want to change. So we tended to build from a snapshot of one of the branches, taken at release time.. so you can roll forwards with source control to reroll your build , but with the security fixes.. Usually we have one or two (or more) of our own changes to apply in the build process. (bug fixes or our own driver .. whatever). on SVN or Perforce we have our own branch which mirrors the FreeBSD one (but has our own additions) in CVS we used to just keep extra patch files we'd apply after checkout. It really depends on what you are DOING with the systems you deploy. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53900ABF.6000508>