[FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD 12.0 end-of-life

[Polytropon]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:52:33 +0000, Ottavio Caruso via freebsd-questions wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 00:49, Yuri Pankov <yuripv at yuripv.me> wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Feb 2020, at 20:39, Tomasz CEDRO <tomek at cedro.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 05:37, Tomasz CEDRO <tomek at cedro.info> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe its a time to give OpenBSD a try..
> > >>
> > >> I really don't understand this comment, either. Certainly give OpenBSD
> > >> a try and if it fits your needs better that's great.
> > >>
> > >> As far as I'm aware OpenBSD issues a release every six months and
> > >> supports the most recent two releases, so it seems odd to me to
> > >> complain about FreeBSD's ~1 year minor release support lifetime and 5
> > >> year stable branch support lifetime in that context.
> > >
> > > Its more like "lets try if what I need works better over there". Not
> > > really the release timeline.
> > >
> > > The release timeline problem is more related with pushing untested
> > > features (and possible avalanche of solutions that introduce yet
> > > another complications that we observe right now).
> > >
> > > "The BSD Way", for me, was always about "it works solid or its not
> > > there". Like macOS / iOS.
> > >
> > > Unlike "The Linux Way" where things changes upside down from release
> > > to release and each one of them has its own universe of variants. Like
> > > Android.
> > >
> > > I am not sure if it is that important if there is a release in 6 month
> > > or 2 years. Not a problem at all. If in two years I get a 5 new
> > > features that work rock solid then it seems a better choice than
> > > getting new features every six months and have more problems on a
> > > production because of that.
> > >
> > > If I need to experiment there is a CURRENT branch. For well tested
> > > features I have STABLE. For rock solid "I bet my money on that" I have
> > > a RELEASE. Right?
> > >
> > > I did miss the 12.0 EoL kind of fix for DRM, sorry, it seems
> > > reasonable. I am just worried that 12.2-RELEASE will have the same
> > > problems, if not more new problems.
> >
> > It is something you can help with, run 12.2-STABLE on some
> > spare equipment and report problems that affect *your* environment.
> 
> To a beginner and uninitiated like me, the way FreeBSD labels
> "stable", "release", "releng" and "current" is, at the very least,
> confusing.

That is true. If you look at the FreeBSD website, you'll quickly
find documentation that explains "which is for whom". Basically,
it's a kind of "refinement process" that has the following habits:

HEAD / CURRENT: Active development takes place here. It's updated
quite quickly, sometimes several times a day. Such a snapshot
might build, but not run, but might fail to build, too. Features
can be tested, can disappear, or change.

STABLE: Everything that's considered to stay in FreeBSD will be
kept here. It is usually tested, and such a snapshot will build
and boot. Thw word "stable" refers to the ABI being stable.

Both -HEAD and -STABLE can only be tracked via source control
(here: svn).

RELEASE: This is the snapshot that contains what is on the
installation media: tested and verified. Stages up to this
point can include -BETA, -ALPHA, -RC, (release candidate),
-PRERELEASE or such kinds of snapshots.

RELEASE-pX: WHen development moves on, security patches will
be made available. They can be "added" to already installed
release versions.

Both -RELEASE and RELEASE-pX can be obtained in a binary way
(here: freebsd-update).

That is just a rough outline, but I believe it's fully clear
now what the different names refer to. :-)


-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...