From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 21:54:40 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874BF16A41F; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8FC43D5F; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.sv.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBHLsdQL021353; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:54:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: from mail.meer.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id jBHLsYtK093159; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:54:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett@mail.meer.net) Received: (from jrhett@localhost) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) id jBHLsYas093158; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:54:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jrhett) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:54:34 -0800 From: Joe Rhett To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20051217215434.GB92180@svcolo.com> References: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> Organization: svcolo.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:11:39 +0000 Cc: stable@freebsd.org, current Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:40 -0000 On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > There will be three FreeBSD 6 releases in 2006. While this is nice, may I suggest that it is time to put aside/delay one release cycle and come up with a binary update mechanism supported well by the OS? Increasing the speed of releases is good. Increasing the number of deployed systems out of date because there are no easy binary upgrade mechanisms is bad. It has been bad, it's getting worse. -- Jo Rhett senior geek SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation