Release schedules

Jerry gesbbb at
Fri Dec 12 12:51:50 PST 2008

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:20:12 -0800
"Joe S" <js.lists at> wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Maxim Khitrov <mkhitrov at>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Glen Barber
>> <glen.j.barber at> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Maxim Khitrov <mkhitrov at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> For example, RC2 builds were scheduled for 29 September 2008. When
>>>> that day comes (or same week perhaps), whoever has the ability to
>>>> change the release schedule page should update it regardless of
>>>> what happened. If RC2 builds started, that should be reflected in
>>>> the 'actual' column. Otherwise, if it's a minor change in the
>>>> timeline, put the new expected date in. As is the case of 7.1
>>>> release, if the person honestly has no idea when RC2 will happen,
>>>> put in 'December', 'January', 'Second half of January'...
>>>> 'Sometime next year' if it's that uncertain. Anything at all; it
>>>> takes 5 minutes to do. In the worst case, your estimate will need
>>>> to be updated again in a month or two. In the best case, the
>>>> release will be made before the expected date. I, for one, promise
>>>> not to complain about that. :)
>>> If the sacrifice is an out-of-date column in a webpage while bugs
>>> are being worked out, in my opinion, that's fine with me.  (IMHO)
>> My point was that it shouldn't be one or the other. Taking a few
>> minutes to update the web page does not interfere with the debugging
>> process. It also doesn't force developers to follow that timeline. It
>> is simply an indication to the users what their expectations should
>> be at the present time.
>> - Max
>Again, I wonder if the reason for the delays is that too much work is
>being taken on for each release. I agree that FreeBSD should be
>released when it is done and quality is of utmost importance. Perhaps
>it would be better to focus on adding a few less features than
>planned, so that they can be implemented well and on time.
>I admit, I am not part of the project, and in the end, I have no idea
>what's going on. I just know that other projects with FAR less
>developers have found a way to do this, so it's not *that* hard.

My biggest gripe with the entire update schedule is that the ports
freeze has been frozen longer than my wife. Maybe having two separate
ports, one for the current version and one for the RC? version might
work better. I have never fully understood why the ports had to be
frozen anyway. Why can there not be two separate entities, the current
version and the beta one?

gesbbb at

Many a bum show has been saved by the flag.

	George M. Cohan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list