# future releases of FreeBSD



## swmok (Jan 16, 2010)

I need write a recommendation to my company about the next release of FreeBSD.
If there is no "next release of latest FreeBSD 7", i.e. 7.2 is the last one, we will stay in 7.2 until 8.1 launch.
If there is 7.3, we will stay until 8.3.

Any news about that?

Thanks.


----------



## fronclynne (Jan 16, 2010)

7.3 is a pretty sure thing, from what I have read, though http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html doesn't seem to be very up-to-date.  You might poke your head into the freebsd-stable archive & see if there's any news there.


----------



## fronclynne (Jan 16, 2010)

Sorry to double up, but this message would support the hypothesis that there will be a 7.3, it's just not far enough along to say when.


----------



## phoenix (Jan 16, 2010)

There's a couple of messages in freebsd-stable mailing list covering initial details for a 7.3 and an 8.1 release in the not-distant future.

My magic 8-ball says they'll probably be released at around the same time.    But it's been known to fail me.


----------



## swmok (Jan 16, 2010)

Thanks a lot.
So, stick to 7.3 until 8.2 or 8.3.
Thanks again.


----------



## thomas (Jan 16, 2010)

curious -- do you have actual issues with 8.0 (besides 'never use the n.0 release)?  is 7.2 good enough for now?


----------



## Alt (Jan 16, 2010)

I saw in one of topics here that first 7.3 will be released, then after 3-4 month 8.1 will be released. If i not mistake @danger said about this


----------



## danger@ (Jan 16, 2010)

you have put it the wrong way  I expect 8.1 will be released 3-4 months after 7.3-RELEASE, which is scheduled for early March (check the upcomming status report); so yes, there will be 7.3 for sure, and there eventually might be also 7.4 (however I saw a little discussion about not doing that one anymore.)


----------



## chrcol (Jan 20, 2010)

danger@ said:
			
		

> you have put it the wrong way  I expect 8.1 will be released 3-4 months after 7.3-RELEASE, which is scheduled for early March (check the upcomming status report); so yes, there will be 7.3 for sure, and there eventually might be also 7.4 (however I saw a little discussion about not doing that one anymore.)



I am a bit concerned in the release schedules with freebsd, I am run freebsd on dozens and dozens of servers.  The problem I am seeing is a very frequent release of minor versions with some not even getting a year's worth of security support and a quite frequent release of major versions.  Every 2 years or so, for me it only seems like yesterday I started using freebsd7 and it is already depreciated and labeled as legacy by the developers.

I have read some quite dodgy bug reports regarding 8.0 on these forums and the mailing lists and for me it would be a good thing if they took the approach they did with 5.x and that is have the first 2 or 3 releases not marked as STABLE and rather as CURRENT, since essentially they beta releases, before a x.0 release only minimal use has taken place by users.  If I upgrade to a new major version I like to get at least 3 years out of it before needing to upgrade again.  This is my single biggest problem with freebsd at this time.  To get new features in is possible without a new major version but it seems deliberate decisions are been made to delay new features to new major versions, an example I can think of is the tcp congestion patch.  It was originally been developed for 7.x and 8.x and now suddenly stopped been maintained in the 7.x code branch.  For me a nice approach would be a more modular way of adding features so new features can be added by a module to a stable release.


----------



## SirDice (Jan 20, 2010)

I think you're over concerned with the 7.x vs. 8.x, legacy vs. production. Yes, it is highly recommended to try 8.0 but noone is forcing you. As already stated there will be a 7.3 release and possibly even a 7.4. When that happens it'll be at least 12 months from now.

Also, with regards to security patches, 6.4 is still supported, at least until the end of the year. 7.x will be supported at least 2 years after the final 7.x release. Basically this means you can run 7.x for the next 3-4 years.

http://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup

Anyway, it must be my age or something because I can remember loading FreeBSD 3.1 for the first time like it was yesterday :e


----------



## chrcol (Jan 20, 2010)

You are been very optimistic with length of support, 7.3 will be 18 months when released, there is already mutters of scrapping 7.4.  So we are looking at probably about another 20-21 months if no 7.4 and 27-28 months if there is a 7.4.

All I am saying is I think with the release schedule a breathe should be taken and instead of holding features back and bugfixes back to release to schedule the release should be delayed and in addition the first 2 to 3 releases should not be in a stable branch.  I wont be surprised if some ports stop working on freebsd 6.4 now before its EOL as well as possibly even 7.x, I remember a discussion I had on the mailing lists a year back where I was told with the ports they only support the latest release.

Also I noticed when remote install freebsd 2 days ago I couldnt install 7.1 over ftp because its been moved to the archive ftp sites, yet 7.1 has longer left on it than 7.2 hence it been my preffered choice of installation.

My suggestion would be an extra year between major releases, allowing 2 beta releases, all releases to be supported for 18 months instead of every 2 releases, and fix the sysinstall it lets bsd down a lot.  I cant believe it hasnt had any major updates between now and 4.x.


----------



## fronclynne (Jan 20, 2010)

*I was going to say slashdot, but they were too optimistic*



			
				chrcol said:
			
		

> You are been very optimistic with length of support, 7.3 will be 18 months when released, there is already mutters of scrapping 7.4.  So we are looking at probably about another 20-21 months if no 7.4 and 27-28 months if there is a 7.4.



Where are you getting these numbers?  Fark.com?


----------



## stevejones (Jan 20, 2010)

Sorry to ask a noobie question but why would they go from 7.2 -> 8.0 then back to 7.3 ?

Doesn't each new release just go up in numbers ?

Thanks.


----------



## phoenix (Jan 20, 2010)

chrcol said:
			
		

> You are been very optimistic with length of support, 7.3 will be 18 months when released, there is already mutters of scrapping 7.4.  So we are looking at probably about another 20-21 months if no 7.4 and 27-28 months if there is a 7.4.



From http://security.freebsd.org:

```
Branch          Release         Type        Release Date         Estimated EoL
RELENG_6        n/a             n/a         n/a                  November 30, 2010
RELENG_6_3      6.3-RELEASE     Extended    January 18, 2008     January 31, 2010
RELENG_6_4      6.4-RELEASE     Extended    November 28, 2008    November 30, 2010

RELENG_7        n/a             n/a         n/a                  last release + 2 years
RELENG_7_1      7.1-RELEASE     Extended    January 4, 2009      January 31, 2011
RELENG_7_2      7.2-RELEASE     Normal      May 4, 2009          May 31, 2010

RELENG_8        n/a             n/a         n/a                  last release + 2 years
RELENG_8_0      8.0-RELEASE     Normal      November 25, 2009    November 30, 2010
```

IOW, each major version (6.x, 7.x, 8.x, etc) has a guaranteed support lifetime of at minimum 2 years (closer to 3 years, since it's highly unlikely that X.0 will be released before X-1.1 is released).

And each minor version has at minimum 6 months.

Not sure what you're complaining about.

FreeBSD 6.x will be around until November 2010.  Ports support won't be removed until then.

FreeBSD 7.x will be around until May 2011 at the very earliest.  If 7.3 is released tomorrow, then 7.x will be around until 2012.

FreeBSD 8.x will be around until 2012 at the very earliest, considering there's going to be an 8.1 release this year.



> Also I noticed when remote install freebsd 2 days ago I couldnt install 7.1 over ftp because its been moved to the archive ftp sites, yet 7.1 has longer left on it than 7.2 hence it been my preffered choice of installation.



Hrm, that is interesting, that the release/ folder for 7.1 has been moved to ftp-archive.

However, on the flip side, it's not that hard to edit the OPTIONS screen in sysinstall to point it at ftp-archive instead of ftp.  So it's not like they've completely removed the ability to install FreeBSD 7.1 (or any older release).

And, 7.3 will be supported for longer than 7.1, making the matter moot.


----------



## phoenix (Jan 20, 2010)

stevejones said:
			
		

> Sorry to ask a noobie question but why would they go from 7.2 -> 8.0 then back to 7.3?  Doesn't each new release just go up in numbers?



Each major release does go up in numbers (from 6 to 7 to 8).  And each minor release does go up in numbers (6.0 to 6.1 to 6.2 to 6.3 to 6.4; 7.0 to 7.1 to 7.2 to 7.3; 8.0 to 8.1).

You have to remember that there are multiple branches of FreeBSD: 6.x, 7.x, 8.x.  Development happens in each branch simultaneously, and each branch has it's own release schedule.


----------



## chrcol (Feb 9, 2010)

phoenix said:
			
		

> And, 7.3 will be supported for longer than 7.1, making the matter moot.



how you work that one out? 7.3 is not available now so it is not moot.



			
				phoenix said:
			
		

> However, on the flip side, it's not that hard to edit the OPTIONS screen in sysinstall to point it at ftp-archive instead of ftp. So it's not like they've completely removed the ability to install FreeBSD 7.1 (or any older release).



is fine I guess if you know what path to enter to the archive directory, I do not.  I just find it odd that a release that has longer support is moved to the archive, seems strange behaviour.  On that note why is there staggered support lengths on different release's?



> And each minor version has at minimum 6 months.
> 
> Not sure what you're complaining about.



exactly that, 6 months is next to nothing.  Why not 18 months for every minor version instead of every two?

This fast paced release schedule of freebsd also serves to reduce 3rd party support as other vendors cannot keep up (poor from them I know but its how it is).  Maybe I am alone on this but I would like to see .0 .1 at the very least be testing releases with .2 been the first STABLE release, and then each major version to have garuantueed 6 minor releases (2 testing + 4 stable).  That way us people running servers can be reasonably confident by the time the first major release is out .2 it will be through some more thorough testing.  I also would like to see alot more stuff backported as well, I think there has been a deliberate decision made at some point to only backport critical fixes as to encourage people onto the latest and greatest version.

Dont take this as a moan please but rather constructive criticism, I like freebsd very much and this is probably my main gripe with it.


----------



## fronclynne (Feb 10, 2010)

*Although, for the Chinese 8 would be considered lucky*



			
				chrcol said:
			
		

> I think there has been a deliberate decision made at some point to only backport critical fixes as to encourage people onto the latest and greatest version.



Maybe give Alex Jones a call and see what he thinks?

But seroiusly:  the USB subsystem, for instance, was entirely rewritten for 8.x.  Given the limited manpower, how would you propose going about backporting that to 7.x?  I'm not really sure just s/7/8/g for everything under /usr/src/sys/dev/usb/ is going to cut it.

As far as political disagreements, I would agree that the push for new major version increments seems to be on, but considering that 8.0 will run just fine on a 300mHz p2 with 128M RAM (manufactured around the same time as FreeBSD 2.2, I think, also windows NT 4.0 would have been pretty new back then) and that a major version upgrade is a whole lot less painful than many _other_ operating systems I could name, I just shrug.  It is, after all, just a number.


----------



## tanakorn (Feb 10, 2010)

I have a question. If there is 8.0 release, why are developers still developing 7.x version? Why don't they develop only 8.x?


----------



## dennylin93 (Feb 10, 2010)

They don't really "develop". It's mostly bug fixes and other features merged from newer branches (-CURRENT and -STABLE).

Most of the development is done on HEAD.


----------



## tanakorn (Feb 10, 2010)

Is it necessary to fix bugs in old version? Is it better that all developers fix only bugs in new version? If all developers fix in recent version, it must be faster than some of them fix in old version. Right?

Sorry for my stupid question.


----------



## phoenix (Feb 10, 2010)

chrcol said:
			
		

> how you work that one out? 7.3 is not available now so it is not moot.



But, the release is imminent, and if just may be the last 7.x release.  Which means, it will get 2 years of support.  Thus, 7.3 will be out, and supported, longer than 7.1.



> is fine I guess if you know what path to enter to the archive directory, I do not.



Fire up a web browser or FTP client, go to ftp://ftp-archive.freebsd.org and click around the directories until you find the install directory.  Voila!  You have the path to use.  



> exactly that, 6 months is next to nothing.  Why not 18 months for every minor version instead of every two?



Considering that, for example, OpenBSD releases new releases of the OS every 6 months, and only supports the current + last release, you'd think having 18 months for a minor release would seem like an aeon.  



> This fast paced release schedule of freebsd also serves to reduce 3rd party support as other vendors cannot keep up (poor from them I know but its how it is).



And that's the point of keeping API/ABI compatibility within a major version, so that a 3rd-party dev can develop a program for 7.0 and have it still work on 7.3, which gives close to 5 years of support.  Or create an app for 6.0 and have it still work on 6.4.  Or create an app for 8.0 and have it still work on 8.whatever.

Then, you add in the compat6x, compat7x, compat8x, etc ports, and you can run a binary app for many, many, many, many years.  How long ago was 5.0 released?  The last port that required compat5x was just recently removed from the ports tree.  And yet, you could still run that app on a 7.2 system.

Just because a new minor release is made available does not mean you are forced to instantly jump up, run out, and upgrade to it.



> Maybe I am alone on this but I would like to see .0 .1 at the very least be testing releases with .2 been the first STABLE release, and then each major version to have garuantueed 6 minor releases (2 testing + 4 stable).



Does that mean you are volunteering to setup the QA framework for that, and to devote the extra man-hours/hardware resources to support that many simultaneous releases, for creating binary packages, for testing changes, etc?   



> That way us people running servers can be reasonably confident by the time the first major release is out .2 it will be through some more thorough testing.



And how is that any different from just waiting for X.2 to be released, and not migrating between major versions until then?  For example, I have several 6.3 servers running in production, waiting for 7.3 to be released before I start to migrate them across.  And don't have any plans to migrate them to 8.x for at least another year.



> I also would like to see alot more stuff backported as well,



You mean MFC'd (merge from current) or MFS (merge from stable).  Just check the commit logs in the SVN repo, you'll see that this happens a lot.  HOWEVER, an MFC/MFS *MUST NOT* change the ABI of a major version without a *VERY* good reason.  IOW, you won't be seeing the new USB stack MFS'd to 7.x, you won't see the VIMAGE stuff MFS'd to 7.x, you won't see any major library changes in the base OS, and so on.



> I think there has been a deliberate decision made at some point to only backport critical fixes as to encourage people onto the latest and greatest version.



Considering the number of changes between a 7.0 system and a 7.3 system, I would have to say you are very much mistaken.  Same for the changes between a 6.0 system and a 6.4 system.

You have to step back and look at how hard the FreeBSD devs try to maintain a stable ABI within a major branch *in support of 3rd party development*, and how hard they try to balance that with getting new features into the system.  Once you do, you'll realise that there really is a method to the seeming madness of supporting 6.x, 7.x, 8.x releases all at once, with development going like mad in 9-CURRENT.


----------



## sixtydoses (Feb 10, 2010)

tanakorn said:
			
		

> Is it necessary to fix bugs in old version? Is it better that all developers fix only bugs in new version? If all developers fix in recent version, it must be faster than some of them fix in old version. Right?
> 
> Sorry for my stupid question.


Well not everyone's running on 8.0.


----------



## joel@ (Feb 10, 2010)

The RELENG_7_3 branch was created today. 7.3-RC1 builds are on the way.


----------



## chrcol (Feb 11, 2010)

phoenix said:
			
		

> You have to step back and look at how hard the FreeBSD devs try to maintain a stable ABI within a major branch *in support of 3rd party development*, and how hard they try to balance that with getting new features into the system.  Once you do, you'll realise that there really is a method to the seeming madness of supporting 6.x, 7.x, 8.x releases all at once, with development going like mad in 9-CURRENT.



Yep I don't and will not suggest the dev's do not work hard.


----------

