On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:42:55PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:41:49AM -0800, Gary Kline wrote:
> > I didn't move until 5 until 5.2+; it was a major move.
> > There were lots of things to get-right. So maybe by
> > 6.5, 6 will be granite stable.
>
> (Disclaimer: I am not on re@ but I do watch the bugs come in as one of
> the bugmasters).
>
> We completely redid the way we did release engineering between the 5.X
> series and 6.X series to avoid ever inflicting that much pain again.
>
> The jump from 5.2 to 5.3 was huge and we learned many things not to do.
> The jump from 5.3 to 5.4 was pretty minor -- but so is the jump from
> 5.4 to 6.0. The emphasis was on a smaller feature set and a much longer
> (painfully long :-) ) period of QA.
The win for me with 5.2.1 last summer was tha it finally let me
begin to get my ThinkPad 600E working. 5.3 may have been
required to bring the bizarre sound chip to life. It's got some
some kind of microsoft idiosyncrasy. I'm at .3-STABLE everywhere
and now moving cautiously to .4.
YES to your smaller jumps. If memory serves, we made two fairly
hard moves. First from 2.x.y to 3.x to get rid of a.out; then
4.x to 5.x for the new filesystem paradigm. I can see anything
beyond the i868 being in the 64-bit world; (*sigh*) :-)
>
> The result in the PR database is that for 6.0 vs 5.4, although there
> are a number of regressions (in particular, certain i386 hardware), the
> number of entries is far, far, less than for the 5.2.1 to 5.3 transition.
>
> So I would urge people to change their view of 6.0. From what I can
> tell it's one of our strongest releases. It certainly must be the
> strongest .0 release.
>
> In any case, I don't believe there are going to be .5 and .6 releases
> going forwards. This will keep us, in the future, from spending so
> much time on MFCs.
I'm still planning on not upping to 6 until 6.2 or better. Not
unless 6.0/.1 has absolutely push-button audio so I can play real,
mp3, m3u, ogg, windows-audio/whatever!
>
> Some of this background is further detailed in an article I wrote:
>
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/past-schedules.html
>
> I hope that people will find the information there useful.
Good one! thanks for putting that together. == Q == Does anybody
know why there is no article.freebsd.org v-site that people could
find stuff like this more easily? It probab;y could be done with
a link/symlink and a DNS entry for the virtual website.
gary
>
> And, if someone ever wants to write that 5.X vs 6.X vs 7.X feature list
> comparison, now would be a good time :-)
>
> mcl
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public service Unix
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
