Hi Doug,
Thanks a lot for these comments and insight - response below...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
I tried to make the point back in June that there was no reason to cut
9.0-RELEASE yet because we don't have solid support for clang in either
the base, or ports (amongst several other reasons) and that the delay
for getting that working would be a great "excuse" for slipping the
support schedule for 8 so that we could release 9.0 not-too-long before
7 was about to go EOL, and make the 8/9/10 release schedules fit the
new, (hopefully) more rational model. Perhaps we can reconsider that
idea for 10.0.
Just previously in this thread, I suggested the following:
<quote>
You could progress 8.x along its current trajectory, possibly
building 8.4 a year or so from now and then be done with it, and then that
would be the last short/unfocused release.
Then you postpone 10.0-RELEASE until January 2017.
Instead of having a legacy branch and two production branches, you would
have legacy (8) production (9) and ... nothing. Or if you need to have it
out there, 10 is the development branch.
Minor releases come out 2-3 times per year, which gets you to 9.10 or 9.15
at the end of the cycle.
</quote>
I wonder if this is too aggressive in that direction, or if this would be
a decent balance ?
_______________________________________________
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"
