To PFsense team. Request for more stable releases.

  • First of all, everyone from pfsense team, you are doing a great job!! I am very respectful for your contributions to this project and professional attitude. Thanks a lot!!

    But here is my vision and proposals on current Dev process. everyone, if you are reading this post and agree with me, please post comment, so Pfsense guys could see what people need.

    I just added Pfsense 2.0.2 which is mentioned as STABLE to production env with multi-wan setup. But unfortunately faced with several buggy things which should not be at STABLE release..

    here are several issues( i suppose you, pfsense ugys have more vision on bugs at 2.0.2, so this is just and example)
    1. MultiWAN: WAN1(Static +PPTP) and WAN2 (DHCP). Gateway at WAN2 didn`t come alive. - discussion,60427.0.html
    2. Webconfigurator stops respondinga after some time…, so i had to execute "killall -9 php; killall -9 lighttpd; /etc/rc.restart_webgui" to bring it up.
    3. DynDNS not updating. Workaround - go to dyndns page and click save.
    4. PPTP Default Gateway and routing problems and so on... I see complains about 2.0.2 release at forum..

    Such situation with bugs is acceptable for beta release, but not for stable which is going to be installed at production and critical places. I would kindly request to focus on bugfixing for new releases than adding new features.. to make pfsense really stable enough for production.

    Personally I did make a decision to stick with pfsense for now because of great functionality, performance and friendly UI.. will be looking for workarounds and applying patches to make everything work.

  • So… the 2.0.3 PRERELEASE.

    I've been running it for several months without any issues.  Lots of people are running.  Search the boards.  The upgrade is easy to do.

    It's not a BETA, it's a PRERELEASE, and most if not all of the issues you list above are fixed.  The reason it's a PRERELEASE is because the developers are waiting for a FreeBSD update from those developers.

  • Only one of those things, #2, is actually a known issue in 2.0.2 which is why 2.0.3 exists. There are many, many people doing all the other things you listed with no issues. Might there be edge case issues in those areas specific something you're doing, maybe.

    The fact that X doesn't work for someone doesn't mean X doesn't work, re: other reports here. If 1 or even multiple reports of something made it a general issue, nothing in any release of any widely used software in history works.

  • tim.mcmanus,
    thanks for proposal, will try it.


    I am agree with you that "The fact that X doesn't work for someone doesn't mean X doesn't work" but i see that you agree I could be faced with a real bug at my setup..
    1. So need the process of identification what is the real bug and what is not at forum/other sources. We are free testers for PFsense :) Need to utilize us.
    2. Also some formal process of product readiness to sign off, for example by number of reported bugs in a period and no major bugs at stable release. Pfsense is not a commercial product, so no pressure from high-value, top customers to release product to a specific, predefined date. The main goal is stable and perfect product.
    3. Major bugs discovered at stable release during production use should be an exceptional case. Need process for rapid patches…See current situation - we have stable 2.0.2 and fix at 2.0.3 which is still not released..Pfsense already have functionality for checking updates, so that could be easy to implement. See the debian process - major releases with new features and a lot of patches between them. Users should not wait for the next stable release to apply critical patches for existed packages/functionality.

    I understand that I could missed some opensource development nuances. That is Just my thoughts in an air.. :)
    I understand that you, pfsense guys, already have stable development process and great coordination - > currently you at top of free routers solutions.

    With respect,
    one of pfsense users.

Log in to reply