2.0.2 ???
-
Thx Jim!
-
Also I wouldn't expect 2.0.2 to be any different - same base OS as 2.0 and 2.0.1.
2.1 might be different.
-
That's a shame. I was really looking forward to it. From an outside perspective, it looks almost like the pfSense project is grinding to a halt…
Well, the overall development activity (github commits & addressing of open issues at redmine) during past 6 months, does appear to be at a much lower level than the same period last year (while working on v2.0) …
-
Last year at this time we were finalizing the 2.0 release, which was huge, and there were a lot more issues (especially with upgrades) that makes it hard to compare against, plus it was in the late RC stage. At the moment we are addressing things but the main problems are quite deep down in the OS/Kernel mostly, so there aren't as many people that can hack on those parts.
Once we get over a couple hurdles there and do an official BETA release of 2.1 activity will likely increase as more things get noticed that everyone can work on.
-
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 :)
