GhostBSD release model after 11.0

[kraileth]

I'm quoting from the X server thread but since this is touching on different topics actually, I decided to create a new post for it

This why I will stay with latest until we get our own repository and even there depending how the ports are going we might stay with something more stable.

I also think it makes perfect sense for developers to use :latest to see what breakage (like this) might be coming but we should stick to recommending :quarterly for the users. Also we'll have to consider at some point what FreeBSD's changed support policy means for us. Since they are going to EOL 11.0 a short time (one month?) after 11.1 is out, the current approach of GhostBSD (taking it's time to build a new release, add new features to the installer and such) is depending heavily on the old model of the previous release being supported for a considerable amount of time.

IMO we shouldn't really touch CURRENT. While TrueOS seems to do it successfully, they have far more people working on it - and they have BEs. But my vision is this: We keep to provide fixed releases for the regular users, same thing as currently (with our own package repo, though, to get more independent of FreeBSD's port option and version choices). In addition to that we create another branch, e.g. "GhostBSD rolling" which will be based on -STABLE and :latest instead of -RELEASE and :quarterly. This would be what the developers run on their main machine and we could also recommend it to more experienced FreeBSD users who either want newer software or probably require backported graphice drivers - things like that. We'd thus all the time be more close to what will eventually become 11.1, 11.2, and so on, and my hope is that this will enable us to provide PREALPHA, ALPHA, BETA and RC probably something like two weeks after FreeBSD does it for the next release. That way we wouldn't leave our users on an unsupported base for long even if problems are identified. That name is just a suggestion that I came up with right now, it's not something that I've thought about a lot. However I'd very much like to avoid the "stable" term since for people who are not that familiar with FreeBSD that is often wrongly thought to be the "more stable" release even though it's name just comes from keeping the ABI stable!

What do you think about that? What should we do after 11.0 so that 11.1 can be adopted rather quickly when we need to? One problem that I see with my suggestion is that right now that "rolling" approach would mean updating from source since freebsd-update does not support -STABLE and we certainly don't want to add that kind of thing feature. However since "packaged base" is meant to become the default in FreeBSD 11.1 (do we have any plans regarding this after 11.0 is out?) this would enable us to provide the "rolling" version of GhostBSD for those who like it.

The problem I have with X right now it is not related to the problem from Xorg, I was trying to make something to configure card to fix a problem for user but it did cause more problem, I was not able to install mate in any of my computer, I did remove that code and let boot like it was booting in 10.3 and that fix the random problem of X and MATE for me.

It's a pitty that it didn't work out - but I'm glad that it could be fixed by reverting to the old way... Even though that's what Alphas are for, the currently released ALPHA1 is pretty much worthless for a lot of people (and I hope not too many downloaded it...).

Eric: We should really, really think about a way to organize things a bit to allow at least for some minimal testing internally before releasing things... I had a discussion on a German tech news site the last couple of days after they published an article about the FreeBSD foundation's latest quarterly status report. There are mainly Linux people around there but some seem to be interested in *BSD as well. The question arose if FreeBSD could actually be used as a desktop which I confirmed of course. Among the questions were things like "is it stable enough?". Of course I'd recommend GhostBSD - but after confirming that FreeBSD is extremely well engineered... Well let's just say that it wasn't cool that I had to admit that anybody interested in trying things out should NOT get the current Alpha of GhostBSD because that's currently broken ("sure, internal builds break - but why do you release it to the public then?"). I would totally appreciate if we could do something about this kind of issue (which is not even a technical one!)...

[ericbsd]

kraileth

This why I will stay with latest until we get our own repository and even there depending how the ports are going we might stay with something more stable.

should had been

This why I will stay with quarterly until we get our own repository and even there depending how the ports are going we might stay with something more stable.

[ericbsd]

MO we shouldn't really touch CURRENT. While TrueOS seems to do it successfully, they have far more people working on it - and they have BEs. But my vision is this: We keep to provide fixed releases for the regular users, same thing as currently (with our own package repo, though, to get more independent of FreeBSD's port option and version choices). In addition to that we create another branch, e.g. "GhostBSD rolling" which will be based on -STABLE and :latest instead of -RELEASE and :quarterly. This would be what the developers run on their main machine and we could also recommend it to more experienced FreeBSD users who either want newer software or probably require backported graphice drivers - things like that. We'd thus all the time be more close to what will eventually become 11.1, 11.2, and so on, and my hope is that this will enable us to provide PREALPHA, ALPHA, BETA and RC probably something like two weeks after FreeBSD does it for the next release. That way we wouldn't leave our users on an unsupported base for long even if problems are identified. That name is just a suggestion that I came up with right now, it's not something that I've thought about a lot. However I'd very much like to avoid the "stable" term since for people who are not that familiar with FreeBSD that is often wrongly thought to be the "more stable" release even though it's name just comes from keeping the ABI stable!

I was looking at the option to build from stable, but not current, weird that yo mention that the same thought on that one. I would say I am not against and it might bring some FreeBSD stable dev to use.

About 11.1 we should be able to release nearly in the same time, like I was doing before, GhostBSD use to be release one week after FreeBSD release all the worst is done for 11.0. I did fall behind because numerous issue related things from the pass of this project that only convbsd knows a bit, way before ASX start to help.

Going back to GhostBSD rolling I would say that what I am looking for, but the only thing I see wrong is for doing updates from the stable branch that might become tricky, maybe less when pkgng will supports base update and upgrade. Also that would give me the a chance to find some huge change before next release comes out. sometimes I get huge surprise from release to release less since 10, I understand change form 10 to 11, but form 9.1 to 9.2, that was to drastic.

To come to last point, GhostBSD did work XFCE did work on my laptop no problem, until I released ALPHA1 I did not see any problem until it get to me, I tried mate tried mate and failed, to go in X, yea I would also say that all image was working for me in VB, I always have see alpha as a release to get as more about put to fix all the worst bug, and it is mostly how FreeBSD do releases, but in the same time you you are right, it should be tested a bit more internally.

As you can see I am not perfect and I been use to work alone for so long, that I have old habit that does not go easy and also what GhostBSD need is people that can build and test iso.

[ASX]

For now, I would stick with one release only, please do not forget we are still very few, hopefully we will increase in the next future.

I agree with kraileith about internal testing and therefore internal only pre-releases; but in my mind I had something like:

- ghostbsd-test-repo -> developers/testers

[ after tests complete successfully, say one week ; ]

- ghostbsd-release-repo -> availabe to all userbase

Hope that make sense to you too.