Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

Pavel Timofeev schreef:
>>> I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be
>>> >  >  longer. Six months, for example.
>>> >  >  New STABLE branch is very important!
>> >
>> >  So is opening head up to allow developers to work on and commit new
>> >  code.  As with many things in engineering, there's a cost/benefit
>> >  trade-off.  RE is doing a remarkable job, IMO.
>> >
> Sorry, don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about new STABLE branch.
> Maybe we need to change things like "BETA-1(2) is still CURRENT". For
> example, let's introduce a new concept "ALPHA" (which will be CURRENT). And
> BETAs will be STABLE.
If you want a really stable OS ,then there is never going to be a release.
In CURRENT, there are a lot of changes already that do not go into 9.0
You _must_ take a point in time to release the release, even with known 
and pending patches.
If you are going to wait, then there will never be a release.

The 9.0.1, 9.0.2 branch idea is very apealling i must say.
But here the same problem do we wait for that one patch that is waiting MFC?
So the same problem when do you release the 9.0.x version!

Releasing the release is a trade-off.

I do like the current approach that FreeBSD uses.
The only thing i think could be better is to slow down the release cycle.
I would like to see a release like 9.8, which then have an enormous real 
world exposure and where "all" possible bugs are ironed out.
A release that you could use without hesitating  for your daily tasks.
But then there is a trade-off again, all new features that are pending 
in CURRENT do not get as much exposure as we would like, and then when 
the new CURRENT become the next production release, we could have a much 
more buggier release then normal.

So i am glad i do not have to make these dicisions.//////// :D

regards
Johan Hendriks