Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:08:08 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> Cc: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lifetime of FreeBSD branches Message-ID: <42969D28.6070306@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <3248.172.16.0.199.1116876092.squirrel@172.16.0.1> <42937D06.1070309@samsco.org> <20050526235805.N5798@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Francisco Reyes wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2005, Scott Long wrote: > >> Again, please don't take the abrupt switch to 6.0 to mean that 5.x is >> flawed or that 6.x will also have a short lifespan. The real purpose >> of the switch is nothing but positive; it'll keep us focused and prevent >> us from overreaching and overextending ourselves. It's a very good >> and very postive strategy. > > > So why have a 6.X naming convention to begin with? > Why not just stay in 5.X name wise? I really should have given 5.3 the name of 6.0. I considered it at the time, but decided not to for some insane reason. > > Is there a thread that sheds some light on that topic? > Is the goal to have a new major branch every 2 years? Yes. This will allow us to pace our major development projects much better than we have in the past. Thus, a ".0" release becomes less of a major event with lofty goals, and more of a snapshot of where our technology is at the time. There will still be goals and major projects, but I don't want us to go through another exercise of spending 4+ years on loosely defined goals that grow out of bounds. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42969D28.6070306>