Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:43:31 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports Message-ID: <20120226194331.GC31385@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <201202261832.17793.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <201202240835.32041.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> <CADLo83_H_v4mRhwptyoL7SqA7N8Fy-wg=8EuCu5DzAYRMU8FGA@mail.gmail.com> <201202261832.17793.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 06:32:17PM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > There's no such odd/even number policy with FreeBSD-- I think you're > > thinking of another OS ;) > > > maybe something got stuck in my head with the move from 4 to 5. Yes, 5 was the Great Leap where true SMP was introduced. In the many-year-long development cycle, so many other things (IIRC geom and suspend/resume, among others) that the change from 4 to 5 was completely disruptive. We resolved to release more often so as to never be in that situation again. (Granted, probably no architectural change will ever be that sweeping again.) There is no meaning to odd/even release numbering in FreeBSD. > How easy was the move to 6 then? An order of magnitude easier than the move to 5. Although as needs to happen with each major release, some code that had been deprecated was dropped, and some subsystems which no one stepped up to do the maintenance necessary for other re-architecting were dropped as well. Each of the subsequent moves has been much the same -- a few gotchas, but nothing like the move to 5. This has been purely intentional. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120226194331.GC31385>