Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:41:41 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: release cycle Message-ID: <465C49B5.8080003@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <465C4624.5020004@freebsd.org> References: <465BF62B.6090904@vwsoft.com> <20070529102929.GA49322@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <465C06CE.6000703@delphij.net> <465C4624.5020004@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce A. Mah wrote: > We've done point releases in the past but only in cases where there were > severe problems and/or regressions with released versions. Look at the > announcements and release notes for 4.6.2-RELEASE and > 5.2.1-RELEASE...these were the two most recent instances where we did > this. There's a reason for this...it's a lot of effort. > > Folks should realize that making a new release (even a new point > release) is not just a matter of tagging the tree and typing "make > release". We (re@) need to figure out exactly what bugs are to be > fixed, get the changes merged and tested, build at least one release > candidate, get that tested, and finally build a set of RELEASE bits and > push them out. I point releases have been obsoleted by errata notices. In the past when X.Y.Z-RELEASE has happened, it has been because of critical bugs in the X.Y-RELEASE which there wasn't any other mechanism to fix. Now that we have errata noticed and FreeBSD Update is in the base system, it's vastly easier for users to run "freebsd-update fetch install" than it is for them to upgrade to a new release. > PS. This having been said I know there are some kernel fixes that were > candidates for errata against 6.2-RELEASE...I'm not sure what their > current state is. Don't ask me, I just approve the errata which you send to me. Which hasn't been anything at all lately. :-) Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465C49B5.8080003>