FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity,
danger at freebsd.org
Thu Jan 19 13:05:03 UTC 2012
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:54:44 -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
>> ... perhaps what is really called for is breaking out our .0 release
>> engineering entirely from .x engineering, with freebsd-update being in
>> the latter.
> This is a great idea!
> In particular, it would allow more people to be involved.
I like this idea too.
In a summary to this thread, I'd say that people would love to see:
- more regular minor releases, e.g. 8.3, 8.4 say every 4 months (3x per
- have max. 2 -STABLE branches under support at any given time (once a
new -STABLE is created, EOL the oldest supported branch; in a result we
would release major version a bit less often. However 5 years between
mayor releases is too much and that would only stagnate the development
and make switching between mayor releases much more difficult)
- make X.Y.Z releases more common or issue Errata notices for existing
minor releases more often. I can easily imagine us fixing much more bugs
by Errata notices than we do now. How much work is behind issuing an
- an idea from this thread that I liked is to allow people to
cherry-pick the patch level (-pX) which would be great if we managed to
release more errata notices.
More information about the freebsd-hackers