-
Why not just update the driver instead of the OS??
Why not try and keep it simple?
Make service packs and do updates along the way instead of trying to create something entirely new every time?
It takes time and by the time your done, then a new OS version has been released!
-
It's not that simple. Not by a long shot.
Plus there are many other improvements in the OS in general that are good to have. -
Please do let me know if there is any unofficial pfSense 2.0.2-RELEASE. Send me private message.
Thanks
-
I look forward to 2.0.2 since the ISO tested didnt perform as well as 1.2.3 and NAT was unstable in reflection state.
You keep mentioning this, but all I ever saw was that you misconfigured your port forwards with a source port when you shouldn't have. Nevertheless, there are some NAT reflection fixes in 2.0.2 that were backported from 2.1. 2.1 has some more NAT reflection changes that were not appropriate to backport to 2.0.2.
-
Good! I dont have source ports on my rules at all :D
So it must have been someone else. I saw the change coming in 2.1 and looking forward to it.
20th october is EuroBSD in Warsaw and if you plan to deply the 2.1 by then, 2.0.2 have no meaning…
-
We're now approaching 5 weeks since the 2.0 code branch was marked as 2.0.2-RELEASE, and still it hasn't seen the light of day. Is there something that the community can do to help move this release process along?
-
Not really, as I've said several times throughout this thread it's mostly about the right people having enough time to do some final tests and get things signed and released.
-
20th october is EuroBSD and the 2.1 should be out by then?
-
That would be nice, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. There are quite a few showstoppers left and we haven't even had a formal beta yet, let alone an RC.
-
What the current showstoppers??
-
2.1 showstoppers are not relevant to this thread. Check redmine and/or start a new thread.
-
They'll be up soon :-)
Jim, It's been over a month.
Can you give the group some idea of how PfSense defines "soon"?
A couple months, a quarter, a half…..? -
Well we've always defined a release as "when it's ready". Someone had found some issues since my last post in limited testing so we had to fix that and make more.
-
Someone had found some issues since my last post in limited testing so we had to fix that and make more.
I always thought that was the purpose behind release candidates.
-
It is, but for whatever reason things keep turning up that are showstoppers or can't be ignored.
-
I just changed my 2.0.1 to use ntpd rather than openntp, with a GPS and PPS; it's working great.
Glad to see that openntp is going away, and ntpd stats will be graphed in the GUI! I see you just committed an ntpd fix a few days ago in 2.1 … I guess the same fix will be in the 2.0.2 tree. I'd be happy to test the new ntpd aspects of 2.0.2 if any new 2.0.2 RCs happen to show up :)
-
I'd be happy to test the new ntpd aspects of 2.0.2 if any new 2.0.2 RCs happen to show up :)
There have been 2.0.2 RCs, they just weren't made public. Nor has the purported release made it to the download mirrors either.
Jim, when you talk about showstoppers, are you referring to 2.1 or 2.0.2 showstoppers? If issues with 2.0.2 are arising, then perhaps it's worthwhile putting an "RC" build of the current code out there and getting some testing feedback from users?
-
The last couple things were small fixes that were easy to confirm, but could have potentially been trouble in a release.
The testing we need to do for this is mostly things we need to confirm ourselves, making sure things work properly on specific hardware, install/upgrade tests and so on.
-
This is a bad thread. From reading this thread I would say there is a hidden agenda and totally opposite to the open source philosophy.
This is not saying that it is, but the responses from the dev's you can tell are not saying everything.Please if you are not going to fully say what is going on, don't respond. It's giving me bad vibes reading this, even though my personal belief is that it's just written out wrong. My guess is that they were hoping for 2.1 to be released and not have to deal with 2.02. 2.1 is delayed and they are not sure if they even want to release 2.02. Just my guess….
Can we close this thread and move on. Would have been better for people not to think a 2.02 was ever even coming (that's what I thought until this thread). -
From reading this thread I would say there is a hidden agenda and totally opposite to the open source philosophy.
That's not true. The source code is still freely available from Github, and anybody with the means and time to compile the code themselves can have a copy of 2.0.2. I agree that this whole situation has a slightly odd sense to it, but considering that we're not paying for pfSense I'm not inclined to press the issue too hard, and I don't recommend anybody else do so either.
