Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:20:15 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> Cc: "<freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Subject: Re: * Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <4F163A6F.8020804@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <F515379F-12D1-4D06-A42D-089FB004C328@fisglobal.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <jf3mps$is3$1@dough.gmane.org> <CAFHbX1%2Bi3JwCCBmqtOsW6m74VpDBSAmBOt7CPcCGAPCO2DBDkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF-QHFV8oj=ipwcsVo3e3P3kgGBPr%2Bz1gRzn3D3PT%2Bc0pHJtcQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F15C48F.7020302@barafranca.com> <20120117224123.GC509@over-yonder.net> <4F16331E.4000702@freebsd.org> <20120118030532.GG509@over-yonder.net> <F515379F-12D1-4D06-A42D-089FB004C328@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/17/12 7:12 PM, Devin Teske wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 7:05 PM, "Matthew D. Fuller"<fullermd@over-yonder.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:02PM -0800 I heard the voice of >> Julian Elischer, and lo! it spake thus: >>> 5 was not out on a limb for so long because it was a clusterfun, it >>> was out there because it was a rework of how almost everything in >>> the kernel worked. >> I'm not saying it was a cluster because it was a huge amount of very >> deep work; it's because that huge amount of very deep work completely >> gated our next release. Now, sure, changing external circumstances >> caught us with our pants down, and the tools we were using (like CVS) >> made it hard to do anything else. But that just means there were >> good reasons why it happened; doesn't make it less clusterfull :) >> >> >> The two circumstances (giant rework, and long period between major >> releases) are duals of each other. If we chop off giant piles of >> stuff to do for FreeBSD-next, it's going to take a very long time. >> And if we instead just set very long times (Jan 2017 for 10?! >> Insanity!) for -next, we're going to end up with giant reworks and >> huge differences. >> >> And _both_ faces are very bad. The one means we wait forever for any >> new work, and the other means that it takes enormous amounts of work >> as a user to transistion across the barrier. >> the trouble with 5 was that it had to be all-or-nothing. there is no such thing as a partly SMP system. (well, not one that you'd want to run). the size of the "giant pile of stuff" was not of our choosing. > We could adopt a cycle similar to the Linux Kernel... > > Odd numbered releases are "experimental" while even numbered releases are "stable" > > (ducks for flying fruit) > > _____________ > The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F163A6F.8020804>