Schedule for releases
Mike Karels
mike at karels.net
Wed Dec 22 17:59:04 UTC 2010
I'm replying to the thread as a whole rather than a specific message.
I work for a security appliance vendor that may represent the worst case
when it comes to supporting older FreeBSD releases. I spend a fair
amount of time back-porting device drivers and other hardware support
so we can run the older releases (back to 6.3) on new hardware. In
fact, we haven't shipped a release based on 6.3 for two years, but
we're still patching it to run on new hardware.
Why so old, a FreeBSD developer asked recently? There are a number
of factors, which are additive:
- We have significant modifications to the system that have to be merged
and retested in an OS upgrade. Of course, there is additional testing
for an OS upgrade itself.
- We try to do OS upgrades early in our release cycle, so our own software
development will be done on the delivery platform.
- We generally consider OS upgrades only for a major release of our own,
usually a .0. These come less often than FreeBSD .0 releases.
- We go through government certifications for some of our releases, but
by no means all. These certifications take a long time. Many of our
customers have to run the certified versions. We can sneak in new
device drivers as a patch, but not an OS upgrade.
- Security customers tend not to run our .0 releases, and often prefer
not to upgrade to a major release for some time, e.g. a major network
upgrade. For management and policy reasons, they want to keep their
appliances at the same version, and upgrade to a major release is a
lot of work. Even our internal customers aren't running a recent
release.
A few comments based on the above:
- We realize that we're running an older release, and don't expect
most of the improvements to be MFC'd. We know that we'll have to
do some of the work to back-port drivers, etc, including testing.
That said, it is helpful when the developers anticipate back-ports,
e.g. leaving ifdefs in place for older versions of bus interface
calls, vlan tags, etc.
- We sometimes back-port other changes, such as TCP locking fixes
that help performance. Considering some such things for MFC would
be desirable.
- Those of us doing backports could probably do a better job of
sharing the results. On the other hand, I'm generally backporting
to a specific release (currently 6.3 or 7.2) rather than -stable,
and we're testing our software rather than FreeBSD.
- Less frequent FreeBSD .0 releases would probabaly help us.
- Changing the naming conventions might matter to some users, but
wouldn't affect us much. I'm currently pushing for a 7.2 to 8.1
or 8.2 upgrade as part of a dot release, and the naming doesn't
really matter to us.
Mike
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list