From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 19 12:16:53 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 7DBC2106564A for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:16:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from timp87@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 03A608FC1D for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so2141551eyd.13 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lRR0cIKgs/qsIlgaqPLEy3ewc916PAwQ6Yw2J0g1b3A=; b=RVrHPoHkZ1VHlyiSPgvdzrw9A/MQ42R95litA5JhOPgVAKvjlhIffaUeuqS9dSaGCy gvsEeXXQbCW0isvjpG7hUNvj6vUtdUPjiQ/sV31fUDffyNBEi+IRSNkcQLNeiGAANoSN 2ms6u//ZEYHMUhTi+JtFqLrOVtGA+00x+2nl4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.5.3 with SMTP id 3mr10870927fat.4.1319026612003; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.24.67 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E9EBA10.5050807@gmail.com> References: <20111014160548.GD5065@albert.catwhisker.org> <4E9EBA10.5050807@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:16:51 +0400 Message-ID: From: Pavel Timofeev To: Johan Hendriks X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:28:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 12:16:53 -0000 2011/10/19 Johan Hendriks > 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. > Yes, I agree, but there must be a golden mean. > 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. > Ok, I understood. > > I do like the current approach that FreeBSD uses. > The only thing i think could be better is to slow down the release cycle. > Yes, me too 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. > Well, it's a large number. x.3(4) - yes. However, progress is developing faster and faster and we need to keep up with him, so you're right below. 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 decisions.** :D > > regards > Johan Hendriks > > > > > > > > >