fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE

[LI Xin]

Ivan Voras wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> 
>> and its for a desktop element of the os, does it matter if servers
>> running FreeBSD have to remain on vulnerable versions of ports as a
>> result of this?
> 
> This looks like another call to have RELENG_x branches on ports, with
> which I agree.

Hmm...  Branching is not about "to do it, or not to do it", but about
"who will invest their time to do it".  By making it as an official
offer we have to make sure that:

 - "STABLE" branch is well maintained.
   What's the rule of "MFC" in these branches?  For src/ the answer is
clear, but for ports/ I do not think it's obvious.  What's the standard
choosing particular ports' version?  Who will be responsible for that?
 - packages are continuously built and mirrored.
   This could cause confusion about "should I use -HEAD ports/, or
RELENG_X ports/?"  Not to mention that it needs a doubled computation
resource for package cluster.

So, while I agree that having branches is a very nice idea I feel that
it is not quite exercisable at the moment.  It's easy for committers to
do "make universe" to verify that their work does not break build, but
it's not that easy for porters to make sure that a commit does not break
the -STABLE branch...

Cheers,
-- 
Xin LI <delphij at delphij.net>	http://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20070518/718de6d2/signature.pgp