From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 18 19:09:51 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983DB106564A; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500C08FC14; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdx13 with SMTP id x13so3737475pbd.13 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:09:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IaM2sv9ce+ZCZ/P2dRQeQKIbPhNzvyb0N2M0U4M8Aa8=; b=Nqmatwi64eeLYd4d1vIHgEfO+2ILjta3f3oEOzEhT8MGMWIhDrJ9xwDnRLh490KXX5 4PIm4ZRuPRenW56GtHFoPOtSQtMlRW9BEmkr8TJvOXcxC8xjoWiFPsXp3ToVLLZUXJo8 pzmKm8f7g+k/4MyItoQp7aJ6wHQPhRzNMqunU= Received: by 10.68.73.138 with SMTP id l10mr45426342pbv.65.1326913791116; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:09:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.28.199 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:09:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> References: <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:09:10 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 36lDY-D00p35b53C2MyZTV62WPs Message-ID: To: Andriy Gapon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, WBentley@futurecis.com, Daniel Eischen , Robert Watson , William Bentley Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:09:51 -0000 On 18 January 2012 17:56, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 18/01/2012 19:13 Daniel Eischen said the following: >> "someone who owns a branch..." - If you cut release N.0, do not >> move -current to N+1. =C2=A0Keep -current at N for a while, prohibiting >> ABI changes, and any other risky changes. =C2=A0If a developer wants to >> do possibly disruptive work, they can do it from their own repo. > > I am totally against this. I was thinking about this and I'm with Andriy on this: such solution has no long term potential and will only serve to stagnate the innovation. This has been repeated over and over in this thread, but it's worth another mention, currently, there are effectively four tracks: 7.4, 8.2, 9.0 and -HEAD, which understandably poses a lot of difficulty for in terms of maintenance. Whatever historical reason for that is, I think a lot of people would agree that this needs changing in the near future to have a single -RELEASE branch and a single -HEAD branch, but with the understanding by the devs that just because -RELEASE has been cut, it doesn't mean that everyone, en mass, drops development on that and hops on the -HEAD bandwagon... -- Igor M.