On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
I was thinking about this and I'm with Andriy on this: such solution
has no long term potential and will only serve to stagnate the
innovation. This has been repeated over and over in this thread, but
it's worth another mention, currently, there are effectively four
tracks: 7.4, 8.2, 9.0 and -HEAD, which understandably poses a lot of
difficulty for in terms of maintenance. Whatever historical reason for
that is, I think a lot of people would agree that this needs changing
in the near future to have a single -RELEASE branch and a single -HEAD
branch, but with the understanding by the devs that just because
-RELEASE has been cut, it doesn't mean that everyone, en mass, drops
development on that and hops on the -HEAD bandwagon...
And as long as we're repeating ... :)
Since 9.0 is already out of the bag, I think a decent approach would be to
fizzle out 8.x on the current timeline/trajectory (maybe 8.4 in 6-8
months, and maybe 8.5 in a year or so), then:
- EOL 7
- mark 8 as legacy
- mark 9 as the _only_ production release
- release 10.0 in January 2017
And in the meantime, begin the every 4-6 month minor releases that we all
agree can occur with 9. By Jan 2017, you get to 9.12 or 9.14 or so.
This is nice because no upheaval needs to happen with 7 and 8, and
interested developers do not get kneecapped vis a vis 9 - they can just
keep going where they were going with it, and the only real change is that
10 is pushed out a long ways, and people[1] get to really sink their teeth
into 9.
[1] *both* developers and end users
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
