release cycle

Scott Long scottl at
Tue May 29 19:53:32 UTC 2007

Colin Percival wrote:
> Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>> We've done point releases in the past but only in cases where there were
>> severe problems and/or regressions with released versions.  Look at the
>> announcements and release notes for 4.6.2-RELEASE and
>> 5.2.1-RELEASE...these were the two most recent instances where we did
>> this.  There's a reason for's a lot of effort.
>> Folks should realize that making a new release (even a new point
>> release) is not just a matter of tagging the tree and typing "make
>> release".  We (re@) need to figure out exactly what bugs are to be
>> fixed, get the changes merged and tested, build at least one release
>> candidate, get that tested, and finally build a set of RELEASE bits and
>> push them out.
> I point releases have been obsoleted by errata notices.  In the past when
> X.Y.Z-RELEASE has happened, it has been because of critical bugs in the
> X.Y-RELEASE which there wasn't any other mechanism to fix.  Now that we
> have errata noticed and FreeBSD Update is in the base system, it's vastly
> easier for users to run "freebsd-update fetch install" than it is for them
> to upgrade to a new release.

Not really.  5.2.1 existed because people were having problems getting
5.2 installed on their ATA disks.  If you have big problems with storage
or network, freebsd-update isn't going to be of much use to you.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list