From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 14 23:03:03 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 723E6106566B for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:03:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gkontos.mail@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7AA8FC15 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:03:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iaky10 with SMTP id y10so4071889iak.13 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:03:02 -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=Cu3pMx87yfu/6JHFA0VVaIDp8aVh8OFj8CSh745Cdmc=; b=sfpvQmghI83lOsB1gKTgHPBI5MuZeKEu6QjJDGcjHuEJPjR8vQe1BBUv24AWJh2qXa gLqcb0IyhHI29CVtAidH8qrIstje+vPhAHQYF90q5TIsHCOvQkA71f0nqGS5oTLmkaNz F+t/iSuplzLIiZ6umqlj50Ui6iYARvH1c0Htw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.130.133 with SMTP id hm5mr19655673icc.11.1318631562060; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.36.13 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:32:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:32:41 +0300 Message-ID: From: George Kontostanos To: Pavel Timofeev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:03:03 -0000 On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > That's what most people think. > 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! IMHO different OS releases (Unix or not) are usually at the state of FreeBSD current regarding stability. FreeBSD late BETA and early RC are usually very stable. Therefore the approximate one month period between the first beta and the release is adequate time. Many users are reluctant to follow stable because they have to go through the wolrd && kernel procedure. Since freebsd-update exists as a means of binary upgrading a system through releases, I don't think that it would be a bad idea to be able to use is for stable as well. Let's assume that we would have monthly minor releases something like 9.0.1, 9.0.2 etc. That could ease the fear of .0 release. This is coming from someone who is using current all the time for workstations and stable for production servers and never uses freebsd-update! Best Regards -- George Kontostanos aisecure.net