On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Tom Evans wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Ivan Voras <ivo...@freebsd.org> wrote:
I've concluded very early that because of what I've said above, the only way
to run FreeBSD effectively is to track -STABLE. The developers MFC-ing stuff
usually try hard not to break things so -STABLE has become a sort of
"running RELEASE" branch. Since -STABLE is so ... stable ..., there is less
and less incentive to make proper releases (though I think nobody would mind
it happening).
The next question is: what do releases from a -STABLE branch bring in that
simply tracking the original -STABLE tree doesn't? Lately, not very much.
Sorry to just pick out bits of your email Ivan?
Ability to use freebsd-update. It would be better to have more
frequent releases. As a prime example, ZFS became much more stable
about 3 months after 8.2 was released. If you were waiting for an 8.x
release that supported that improved version of ZFS, you are still
waiting.
Ding!
It's amazing how many people are in the exact same boats - waiting for
8.3, getting locked out of new motherboards because em(4) can't be
"backported" to even the production release...
You say that snapshots of STABLE are stable and effectively a running
release branch, so why can't more releases be made?
Is the release process too complex for minor revisions, could that be
improved to make it easier to have more releases, eg by not bundling
ports packages?
Thanks, Tom. I'm calling for some changes that, culturally, might be
impossible, but a lot of pain would be avoided if more regular minor
releases (3 per year) were made.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
