Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:03:33 -0400 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number >of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it is >only one branch). Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing *something*. Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule. Can't do 4 releases a year? Cut back to 2. Still too many? Cut back to 1. The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above. Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv>