From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Oct 12 12:58: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB39B37B401 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787E743EB3 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g9CJvvpk008348 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:57:57 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:57:09 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20021012.135709.38051542.imp@bsdimp.com> To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 6.0 branching (no longer: HEADS UP: 5.0 Feature Freeze October 16, 2002) From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <3DA7C3DF.1CFD6978@softweyr.com> References: <200210112056.g9BKuZEx041686@apollo.backplane.com> <3DA7C3DF.1CFD6978@softweyr.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [[ don't cross post to private and public lists ]] In message: <3DA7C3DF.1CFD6978@softweyr.com> Wes Peters writes: : Matthew Dillon wrote: : > : > I definitely agree with the 5.0 time schedule. I also agree with : > Julian that it would be premature to branch 5.0 into -stable and : > make 6.x -current. We should go through at *least* one more release : > cycle (5.1) before branching, IMHO, simply to reduce the amount of : > MFCing that would otherwise be necessary. : : Matt brings up a good point here. I'm daring to cross-post this because : I want to move THIS discussion to -arch, where it belings. I've directed : replies to -arch. : : I think we need to discuss when we will branch 6.x. I think we need to : wait until we have a 5.x release that is stable enough to consider for : production workstation usage levels, and hope we may reach that point : by the 5.2 release. I think arbitrarily whacking off a new development : branch before 5.x is really and truly stabilized could hurt the FreeBSD : project greatly. : : This is obviously not my decision to make, and many of you know much : more about the actual work to be done than I do. Please provide your : input. I'm not asking that we make a decision at this point, just : getting people thinking about how we might go about this, since it is : likely to be different from how we've done it in the past. I think that the general consensus has been to wait until 5.1 or 5.2 to do the branch. This has been the position of the last couple of developer summits that I've been at. We knew this a year ago. I'd let RE make the final call on this, but what you (and Matt) have said makes good sense. It is basically what most of the folks that have an opinion on this have been saying for some time now. This does mean that we'll need to keep the amount of rototilling down to a minimum during this time, and exclude new features that impact the stability of the system until after the branch. It will be a new feature slush rather than an outright freeze, since many new features can be integrated w/o impacting system stability. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message