> On 03 Jun 2016, at 6:23 PM, Bob Eager <r...@tavi.co.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:17:57 +0200 > Franco Fichtner <fra...@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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"