On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Zbigniew Baniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure about amount of time sacrificed each time to prepare new complete > release... but perhaps it could be spared, if the system+packages is > "refreshed" piece-by-piece / month-by-month?
Tell ya what: try it and see. First you'll need to get at least one machine from each of our supported platforms. Then you'll need to do builds. Then you'll need to test throughly. Test everything in base against everything else, in all kinds of strange configurations and with other broken software that people might be forced to use. And don't forget about all the ports people use - you could probably spend most of a week just compiling ports. So much time compiling and testing that you've got no time for development. There's a reason why we have tree locks and testing windows and snapshot re-spins before a release... and and you want us to do this 12 times a year? I assume you've sent a huge donation so we can have triply replicated build labs and a staff of test engineers to make it all go... > From the users' point of view: no need to reinstall at all - while having > always the latest release (just because there's only that "latest"). > > Above are my rather theoretical thoughts... not sure, just asking. Great, so now everyone has to keep track of what goes on in every monthly release? Sheer lunacy. "no need to reinstall" - what are you smoking? Are you advocating that we just magically start replacing binaries on everyones machines or that people stop upgrading? You're going to have some downtime while you put new kernels in. Also, this sounds like you haven't ever actually tried upgrading an openbsd machine. If you get the tarballs on a local source before you start, it takes just a couple of minutes longer than the theoretical shortest time possible. The latest release happens in May and November - makes it really easy to plan your upgrades. You do have a patch policy for all your important machines, right? If that's not good enough, then run current, file good bugs and help test fixes. -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
