Re: How much to remove from UPDATING (was: Re: git: ff0c7816db69 - main - Remove UPDATING entries from old branches.)
- Reply: Alexander Leidinger : "Re: How much to remove from UPDATING (was: Re: git: ff0c7816db69 - main - Remove UPDATING entries from old branches.)"
- In reply to: Warner Losh : "Re: How much to remove from UPDATING (was: Re: git: ff0c7816db69 - main - Remove UPDATING entries from old branches.)"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 03:12:08 UTC
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 7:17 PM Warner Losh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 2:35 PM Alexander Leidinger <email@example.com> > wrote: > >> Quoting Warner Losh <firstname.lastname@example.org> (from Fri, 25 Nov 2022 09:41:28 >> -0700): >> >> > Please revert this. We keep older updating entries on purpose. You >> purged >> > way too much. Let's chat about how much to remove in arch@. They are >> for >> > more than just source updates, so your reasoning is wrong. They are also >> > there for users updating their products which can have a larger leap in >> > time. We've traditionally kept closer to 5-10 years here for that >> reason. >> >> Reverted. >> >> UPDATING as far back as stable/10 (= 4 major updates) is a little bit >> excessive (more than 9 years of development work so far), isn't it? >> > > Yes. It's about one release too old, maybe two. More on one or two in a > bit. > > >> I don't get the "more than just src updates" part. If we don't talk >> about the source code, isn't src/UPATING not the wrong place to store >> it? >> > > More than just 'make buildworld updating' or ''updating a system from src' > is what I mean. > > >> In terms of updating products, I understand that updating them every 2 >> years may be a little bit expensive/excessive for some vendors, but >> taking every UPDATING from every stable branch in-between doesn't look >> too much time consuming to me. And compared to the huge amount of >> changes between N-2 and N... taking UPDATING from all stable branches >> in-beteen is nothing. Nevertheless, 4-5 years I consider OK-ish, >> nearly 10 years is ... ugh ... a life-time or two in the computer >> world. If we look e.g. at the PlayStation (yes, just one of the >> products which has FreeBSD inside, but personally I consider it one of >> the more stable ones than some network products which have a shorter >> shelf-time than the PS-line from an OS-version-tracking point of >> view), there are around 6 years in-between models, and they surely >> haven't started developing a month before the release date. >> > > So, let's look at what it's used for to see how much we need. If you > look at it that way, you'll see that we're not crazy lagging. > > >> So where do we draw the line for UPDATING, 2 major versions (~4 >> years), 3 major versions (~6 years)? ~10 years (~5 major versions) >> looks overly excessive to me. That's not something you want to try to >> catch up, that's rather a new development than a catch-up > > > OK. Traditionally we've lagged a major release or two from what's > officially supported by the project. Right now the 10.x stuff is definitely > too old. The 11.x stuff is borderline (but likely relevant), the 12.x stuff > is still quite relevant. > > We need to look at who is updating. Many people have only recently > updated from 11. Almost everybody has updated from 10 by now. Lots > of people are using 12 and it's still supported. > > Most of the folks that have source products with lots of changes have > updated to at least 12 as far as I've been able to tell. But many haven't > jumped to 13 or current yet. > > There are many people still updating their VMs from 11. Traditionally, they > wait until after 11.x goes unsupported before they update. It's only been > unsupported for just over 1 year. In the past, this is where upgrading is > hitting full speed (I've received feedback in the past at conferences that > people often put it off for up to 18 months)... 10.x has been unsupported > for more than 3 years, so historically everybody has moved on. So the > I can't do math.... More than 4 years... > 10.x entries are definitely stale... The 11 entries are on the edge... I'd > normally have removed the 10.x entries when 13 was branched, but > I was asleep at the wheel this time.... Though looking at the logs, I've > been not so great about this. Better at some times, worse at others.... > So in my opinion, 10.x entries should have already been gone. 11.x > entries are likely useful enough to keep, but they are waning fast. 12.x > entries are likely being used all the time by people upgrading from > still-supported > releases. We've traditionally weighted towards retention because the > cost of retention has been super low. > > This suggests we delete up to the 11 branch point now, and to the 12 > branch point when 14 branches in 6 months or so... > 13.x was branched about 6.5 years ago. When 14 is branched, it will be 7 years and we'll removing the to the 12 branch point which will be four and half years. This seems like a good range to oscillate between. Warner