On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200 Franco Fichtner <fra...@lastsummer.de> wrote:
> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a > year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months > after our initial release in order to receive official security > updates. Worst case it takes a few months to adapt to the > major transition so that's 12 months minus X months of internal > engineering, depending on your staff expertise. In that case > we started in 2014, took us 4 months, that's 6 months including > the time 10.0 was officially available, so 6 months left for > support, when you actually start adapting to 10 as soon as it > comes out. For many that's a luxury not going to happen. One > can blame anyone for starting late, but it's not going to solve > the real world problem. > > 10.1 went really well. When 10.2 happened for us in January > 2016, however, we've already went testing 3 months before and > had a number of issues that were not being addressed upstream > for a longer amount of time: Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a longer support cycle. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
