From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 19 11:52:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EAD106564A for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joh.hendriks@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37278FC0C for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so2111008eyd.13 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=bLqFLp2cJ8U0081k4zlJcCIsN6VbmY9wHzC6vqx3Z/U=; b=buiBVAHKHK1EvrU1A3R0p1mmqvWj0D2uMvUpzN9LuuEYH+1trIEDIJuO2zJBE3hGvG JbLcgMei1JIN7FKbW2ahYmLP6MyTK7xQqJQXrMPwS+1WaBdC25XxJIT7fCujOWJZNhNt RZdCkpEkRIlAMGWiZw5ylqD7fOcmGmu8h40Sw= Received: by 10.14.15.1 with SMTP id e1mr805027eee.18.1319025171680; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.50.106] (double-l.xs4all.nl. [80.126.205.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f16sm14840550eec.8.2011.10.19.04.52.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E9EBA10.5050807@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:48 +0200 From: Johan Hendriks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Timofeev References: <20111014160548.GD5065@albert.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:53 -0000 Pavel Timofeev schreef: >>> I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be >>> > > longer. Six months, for example. >>> > > New STABLE branch is very important! >> > >> > So is opening head up to allow developers to work on and commit new >> > code. As with many things in engineering, there's a cost/benefit >> > trade-off. RE is doing a remarkable job, IMO. >> > > Sorry, don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about new STABLE branch. > Maybe we need to change things like "BETA-1(2) is still CURRENT". For > example, let's introduce a new concept "ALPHA" (which will be CURRENT). And > BETAs will be STABLE. If you want a really stable OS ,then there is never going to be a release. In CURRENT, there are a lot of changes already that do not go into 9.0 You _must_ take a point in time to release the release, even with known and pending patches. If you are going to wait, then there will never be a release. The 9.0.1, 9.0.2 branch idea is very apealling i must say. But here the same problem do we wait for that one patch that is waiting MFC? So the same problem when do you release the 9.0.x version! Releasing the release is a trade-off. I do like the current approach that FreeBSD uses. The only thing i think could be better is to slow down the release cycle. I would like to see a release like 9.8, which then have an enormous real world exposure and where "all" possible bugs are ironed out. A release that you could use without hesitating for your daily tasks. But then there is a trade-off again, all new features that are pending in CURRENT do not get as much exposure as we would like, and then when the new CURRENT become the next production release, we could have a much more buggier release then normal. So i am glad i do not have to make these dicisions.//////// :D regards Johan Hendriks