Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:00:07 -0800 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ7YR8OrEUpEEcLfvTOcr7f=05y9v6aoFxfhbNKRM_2WGw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F172B1E.30401@FreeBSD.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181034580.51158@fledge.watson.org> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201181147450.6287@sea.ntplx.net> <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> <CADWvR2ip=nADz=BLXW%2BuNkyUP4hUf88UkOhSoz%2B0AcY79Hzdag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181141270.19710@kozubik.com> <4F172B1E.30401@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 01/18/2012 11:46, John Kozubik wrote: >> - mark 9 as the _only_ production release > > What I've proposed instead is a new major release every 2 1/2 years, > where the new release coincides with the EOL of the oldest production > release. That way we have a 5-year cycle of support for each major > branch, and no more than 2 production branches extant at one time. > > History tells us that 2 production branches is a goal we can achieve, > with the focus shifting more heavily towards only bug/security fixes in > the oldest branch after the new production release branch is cut. If we > combine that with the ideas that are being put forward about teams that > "own" a production branch, and a more frequent stripped-down release > process, I think this is a very workable model. This is similar to how Debian works (the other OS we use the most often). They have "testing" (aka -CURRENT) where all the new development takes place, that will eventually become the next major release; "stable" (aka production -RELEASE) which sees minor (actually, point) releases every few months; and "oldstable" (aka legacy -RELEASE) which sees no development beyond major security/bug fixes. There's approximately 2 years between major releases, at which time "oldstable" is EOL'd, "stable" becomes "oldstable", "testing" becomes "stable", and development continue with the new "testing". I can see something like that working for FreeBSD, as you've outlined it above. It seems to work well for them, although it's not a perfect comparison since the Debian devs don't do a lot of development on their own, it's more integration and testing work with software from a bunch of other, independent projects. What would be really nice, though, to help with the above, is a branched ports tree that followed the same release schedule. Perhaps it's time to dust off my coding skills and jump back into port maintenance. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOjFWZ7YR8OrEUpEEcLfvTOcr7f=05y9v6aoFxfhbNKRM_2WGw>