From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 22 14:58:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9C0106564A; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:58:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF79F8FC13; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:58:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59C5146B39; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C827E8A009; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:58:33 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:54:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20101102; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <9194.1292972364@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <9194.1292972364@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012220754.15161.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:58:33 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Schedule for releases X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:58:36 -0000 On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:59:24 pm Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Robert Wats > on writes: > > >Looking at 7.x, I'm struck by how much it has slowed down. There's a > >significant user community, but not a significant developer community. > > This is a very important point to interpret correctly: > > FreeBSD is whatever its developers make it be. > > If there are no developers who has an interest in MFC'ing back to 7.x, > MFCs will not happen, no matter how much we talk about it. There is a fly in the ointment here though in that some developers _do_ have an interest in doing MFC's to 7.x and having a longer 7.x branch (for example). However, our current release structure makes that more painful since you have to merge changes across three branches. If .0 releases were more spread out then supporting 7.x would no longer meaning supporting 3 active branches, but back to just 2 branches. For much of the problems I need to solve at work, I am developing on 7.x (since that is what we use currently) and then "forwardporting" two branches forward to 9. > Trying to force developers to maintain multiple branches will not work, > they have to take an interest. Yes, but if we chose to have longer -stable branches we could also adjust our release schedule to compensate. We have _chosen_ this current model of relatively short -stable branches and frequent X.0 releases. > Companies who use Open Source are not adverse to paying for the > service they get, but somebody needs to make it easy for them. You should be careful to not ignore the feedback of companies who already _are_ paying for this service in some fashion (e.g. by employing committers who are allowed to participate in the community as well such as mdf@ or myself). These companies are already doing that, but one could make the argument that our current release structure works against their efforts. All that said, I do see benefits to the current model as well, and I am still playing around with ideas to see if I just need to switch to new major versions sooner. Maybe with FreeBSD 10 we should just follow the OS X model where major versions are actually minor versions instead. :) (So FreeBSD 10 would be 10.0, 11 be 10.1, etc.) People would certainly treat 10.0.1 and 10.0.2 as service packs at that point. :) Given that the merge from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8 has been far simpler than previous major versions, some of the trepidation from vendors about frequent releases may in fact be more of a perception problem that something like 10.x.y (or even 9.x.y?) could resolve. -- John Baldwin