Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:27:10 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: John Kozubik <john@kozubik.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <4F172B1E.30401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181141270.19710@kozubik.com> 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> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201181147450.6287@sea.ntplx.net> <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> <CADWvR2ip=nADz=BLXW%2BuNkyUP4hUf88UkOhSoz%2B0AcY79Hzdag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181141270.19710@kozubik.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/18/2012 11:46, John Kozubik wrote: > - mark 9 as the _only_ production release While I understand your motivation, I am not sure this is a workable goal when combined with the goal that others have expressed of longer timelines for the support of a given branch. Speaking from personal experience, once a service is released on a given platform the costs of migration can be significant. And if what I have is working well and only needs the occasional bug/security fix my motivations for migration are near zero. So the tradeoffs then become more frequent major releases to get new features, vs. longer support for a given release branch. Let's take 5 years as a reasonable time period for supporting a branch. Waiting that long between major releases would significantly stifle the ability to add new features that require breaks to the [AK][BP]I. It would also inhibit our ability to do revolutionary architectural changes such as moving to clang as the primary supported compiler. What I've proposed instead is a new major release every 2 1/2 years, where the new release coincides with the EOL of the oldest production release. That way we have a 5-year cycle of support for each major branch, and no more than 2 production branches extant at one time. History tells us that 2 production branches is a goal we can achieve, with the focus shifting more heavily towards only bug/security fixes in the oldest branch after the new production release branch is cut. If we combine that with the ideas that are being put forward about teams that "own" a production branch, and a more frequent stripped-down release process, I think this is a very workable model. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F172B1E.30401>