Schedule for releases

[Alexander Leidinger]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:47:32 +0000 (UTC) "Bjoern A. Zeeb"
<bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I think this is the core "problem". Statistics[1] show, that most
> > developers run some form of -CURRENT and
> ...
> > [1] I just made this statistic up.
> 
> and I think you are just plain wrong here.  Seriously I would bet that
>   >75% of the developers do not run some sort of head for their
> day-to-day work.  They might use it for compile (and boot and maybe
> sometimes even some more) testing, they might run it in a VM, or a lab
> machine but not on their servers, not on their notebooks and not on
> their desktops they work with daily (and neither would I expect most
> consumers of FreeBSD unfortunately).

You can count me as one of those which run (more or less) HEAD on his
server and (mostly unused) desktop at home.

> I am still not convinced that whatever development model people and
> companies use (and I heard of in here) is better than to just devel
> on HEAD and if it works there merge it and backport it to your release
> branch for QA and shipping.

It may not be a problem for developers which know enough about FreeBSD,
but try to sell this to people which do not know enough about FreeBSD
or some management-people (and I'm not talking about the
money-argument here).


> We still lack the parts that would tell us something in the last week
> or last 24 hours caused a regression that made my TCP/NFS/ZFS/UFS/<you
> name it> n% slower.  Kris had been doing a good job in the past but as
> time shows we need more people, different setups, ...

We do not lack the parts, we lack someone to take the parts and get
them up and running. See:
  http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-performance@freebsd.org/msg02819.html
  http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-performance@freebsd.org/msg02821.html

> It's not only "compiles", "boots", but also the formerly in this
> thread mentioned "works correctly" and in addition to that the "works
> well as expected" or "works better than before" - hopefully;).

Maybe this could also be used to run the regression tests as one of the
benchmarks. If yes: As Robert mentioned, we can not go and tell to run
them all in one command (ATM), but we could have each of them as a
different benchmark.

Bye,
Alexander.