From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 19 00:00:08 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 A5E59106566B for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@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 6F94A8FC19 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdx13 with SMTP id x13so3920335pbd.13 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:00:08 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type; bh=XYr4Janpu6nps6yDAuZYaCCfD7z6MBkiLCEb8CSsSFs=; b=F/KU0UdAYyIuRjhgAJa/iSL5vm4lz/ZpKUDsMwSXkWKgt1MJg492YaCmFGsybkBvDq cwNKIeSXucojelLVtF0z65WFHxi+j9BTo1K17xbFbfNXfVRlB5K6NfOP8LrYlqZCCWmV e76i1ftcIZdT5fEF4FWV6Z3aqDpkxpCO0gpEo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.189.131 with SMTP id gi3mr1720218pbc.12.1326931208022; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:00:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.113.1 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:00:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F172B1E.30401@FreeBSD.org> References: <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> <4F172B1E.30401@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:00:07 -0800 Message-ID: From: Freddie Cash To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:08 -0000 On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Doug Barton 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