Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:54:44 -0800
From:      Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>
To:        Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, WBentley@FutureCIS.com, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org>, William Bentley <William@FutureCIS.com>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle
Message-ID:  <570E1AEB-F0C5-4286-BF10-56D509D33473@kientzle.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181034580.51158@fledge.watson.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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
>=20
> ... perhaps what is really called for is breaking out our .0 release =
engineering entirely from .x engineering, with freebsd-update being in =
the latter.

This is a great idea!

In particular, it would allow more people to be involved.

There's a practical limit to the number of people that can be
involved in any single release process; having multiple
groups handling separate releases (for example, we
might have a group working just on 8-STABLE releases,
so that 8.3, 8.4, etc, weren't competing for resources
with the more complex 9.0 release).

Tim




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?570E1AEB-F0C5-4286-BF10-56D509D33473>