LTS support and version clarifications

[Cath O'Deray]

… not inline with, and even clashes with, the FreeBSD website, …

… FreeBSD website information inline with the Handbook, …

… From the above Handbook quote: … contradiction with: …

… If you or Colin Percival feel that FreeBSD-STABLE should be designated otherwise, I strongly suggest: change all documentation accordingly. …

… FreeBSD Support Model. …

Re: clashes and contradictions in documentation and elsewhere, please see:

<link removed>

 

[anlashok]

Farewell 12, you served us well.

 

[Cath O'Deray]

anlashok thanks. Three corrections/suggestions:

1. support for STABLE (not for RELEASE alone) – important
2. uppercase for CURRENT, STABLE, RELEASE (but not for branches e.g. stable/14 (stable/15 does not yet exist))
3. add 13.5-RELEASE, 14.5-RELEASE, 14.6-RELEASE, 15.5-RELEASE, 15.6-RELEASE.

An alternative to the pictured proposal includes 13.6-RELEASE and 14.7-RELEASE. I shouldn't include those.

 

[anlashok]

3. add 13.5-RELEASE, 14.5-RELEASE, 14.6-RELEASE, 15.5-RELEASE, 15.6-RELEASE.

The last major release with a point release greater than .4 was FreeBSD 5.5 over 17 years ago, so aside from the screenshot you shared it doesn't strike me as a needed change to this image quite yet. Quite easy to do though I can just rename the release arrows text in the SVG so that every row shifts up two rows (i.e rename x.0 to x.2 etc.) as if there is a .5+ then there is no need to refer to the .0 or .1 releases as they would be long EOL by then.

Regarding STABLE being supported, is this not implicit for any version with a supported RELEASE version on the same branch?

 

[SirDice]

The last major release with a point release greater than .4 was FreeBSD 5.5 over 17 years ago, so aside from the screenshot you shared it doesn't strike me as a needed change to this image quite yet.

Agree, with the current pace of releases a .4 is typically the last minor version of a major branch.

 

[Cath O'Deray]

… implicit …

It's explicit – "… each major version’s stable branch is explicitly supported for 5 years, …".

 

[Cath O'Deray]

with the current pace of releases a .4 is typically the last minor version of a major branch.

I haven't listened to everything from all four days, but I do like the proposed changes. Support for three stable branches should become a rarity, and so on.

I can't imagine no change; we should expect an announcement in due course.

 

[Cath O'Deray]

Support for three stable branches should become a rarity,

allanjude@ I guess, it was you in the audience, "… Three total branches including main is probably the cap of what we can stomach …".

+1

 

[Erichans]

The last major release with a point release greater than .4 was FreeBSD 5.5 over 17 years ago, so aside from the screenshot you shared it doesn't strike me as a needed change to this image quite yet.

Agree, with the current pace of releases a .4 is typically the last minor version of a major branch.

+1 (twice)—I think in the (SVG) picture we should focus on what's relevant for the user at this moment and leave any distant projections not in view for what they are: not in view.

 

[Cath O'Deray]

… distant projections …

What might be treated as distant?

(2028 is implicit in the section below.)