old ports/packages
Franco Fichtner
franco at lastsummer.de
Fri Jun 3 16:44:33 UTC 2016
> On 03 Jun 2016, at 6:23 PM, Bob Eager <rde at tavi.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200
> Franco Fichtner <franco at lastsummer.de> wrote:
>
>> The initial release was 10.0, which was phased out after a
>> year, leaving us no choice but to go 10.1 just two months
>> after our initial release in order to receive official security
>> updates. Worst case it takes a few months to adapt to the
>> major transition so that's 12 months minus X months of internal
>> engineering, depending on your staff expertise. In that case
>> we started in 2014, took us 4 months, that's 6 months including
>> the time 10.0 was officially available, so 6 months left for
>> support, when you actually start adapting to 10 as soon as it
>> comes out. For many that's a luxury not going to happen. One
>> can blame anyone for starting late, but it's not going to solve
>> the real world problem.
>>
>> 10.1 went really well. When 10.2 happened for us in January
>> 2016, however, we've already went testing 3 months before and
>> had a number of issues that were not being addressed upstream
>> for a longer amount of time:
>
> Why not just use odd numbered releases? That's what I do. They have a
> longer support cycle.
Why release even-numbered at all then? To get better odds? :)
On a more serious note, that was actually the bottom line of internal
discussions: wait longer, do less. Not sure if this is the best thing
for FreeBSD as a whole to let others sit these ones out.
Cheers,
Franco
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list