Future code branches after 2.1 is released



  • Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.
    Master has both FreeBSD 10 implementation, and new "PHP-based" features that do not depend much on the underlying FreeBSD version.
    A couple of questions:

    1. How is the progress on getting a pfSense 2.2 build to work based on FreeBSD 10?
      If that is going well, and we can have snapshot builds of master with FreeBSD 10 in the next few weeks, then ignore the next question.

    2. What is planned for the 2.1 branch? Will 2.1.1, 2.1.2… be purely bugfix releases? Or will they also accept functional changes that are not dependent on moving to FreeBSD 10? Will 2.1.n snapshots continue to be built after the formal 2.1 release?
      It might be handy to provide a path for a little while that allows new functionality to be released without requiring that sites jump to FreeBSD 10. (Then again, FreeBSD 10 might be so good and stable that everyone hurries to get on the pfSense 2.2 bandwagon...)


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    @phil.davis:

    Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.

    It will be out Very Soon Now™

    @phil.davis:

    Master has both FreeBSD 10 implementation, and new "PHP-based" features that do not depend much on the underlying FreeBSD version.
    A couple of questions:

    1. How is the progress on getting a pfSense 2.2 build to work based on FreeBSD 10?
      If that is going well, and we can have snapshot builds of master with FreeBSD 10 in the next few weeks, then ignore the next question.

    Don't hold your breath there. It will take some serious work before 10.x snapshots are usable for more than basic testing. It may compile now but several things are missing or will need a lot of work to adjust for. We may have snapshots available in a month or so (give or take) but they would not be usable for anything outside of a lab for a while. Back to "alpha-alpha" stage. Do not expect to just grab one and run it for new hardware any time soon.

    @phil.davis:

    1. What is planned for the 2.1 branch? Will 2.1.1, 2.1.2… be purely bugfix releases? Or will they also accept functional changes that are not dependent on moving to FreeBSD 10? Will 2.1.n snapshots continue to be built after the formal 2.1 release?
      It might be handy to provide a path for a little while that allows new functionality to be released without requiring that sites jump to FreeBSD 10. (Then again, FreeBSD 10 might be so good and stable that everyone hurries to get on the pfSense 2.2 bandwagon...)

    RELENG_2_1 will be bugfixes only, much like RELENG_2_0 was for 2.0.x and RELENG_1_2 was for 1.2.x. An occasional minor feature may make it in, epsecially if it's sponsored and it won't hurt. New features belong in master and that isn't likely to change.

    We will likely continue 2.1.x snapshots, but maybe not right away.  If anyone is worried about stability, they should stick to the -RELEASE images. Snapshots, though we try to keep them high quality especially this late in the release cycle, are NOT a permanent plan for production. We will almost undoubtedly have a 2.1.1 to fix issues found post-release with 2.1, and/or any security issues that pop up.

    If all goes according to plan, the jump to FreeBSD 10.x will be better overall, and with most of the focus there rather than many new features, it may be sooner than expected for a release, but it depends on what challenges arise from FreeBSD 10.x in the meantime.

    The situation with IPv6 was unique when we allowed for running 2.1 code on a 2.0 base. I don't expect that will be supported nor recommended for 2.2. Many changes will be happening specific to FreeBSD 10.x very soon, it wouldn't be worth the effort to make sure that functions. It might, but chances are it wouldn't.



  • @jimp:

    @phil.davis:

    Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.

    It will be out Very Soon Now™

    So there wont be a RC2?


  • Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate

    @AhnHEL:

    @jimp:

    @phil.davis:

    Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.

    It will be out Very Soon Now™

    So there wont be a RC2?

    Maybe, maybe not. If there is it would only be a tag, probably not any official/formal released set of images.



  • @jimp:

    @phil.davis:

    Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.

    It will be out Very Soon Now™

    Very Soon Now ™

    ;) ;) ;)  8) 8) 8)



  • The difference being, that there never was a set release date ;)



  • If there is it would only be a tag, probably not any official/formal released set of images.

    Jim has bumped the tag to 2.1-RC2 - so that will appear on the next snapshot.
    "Very Soon Now" and "Real Soon Now" are [very|real] different things. But which is the soonest? :)



  • I know it's just a tag but it does feel good.  Another milestone towards RELEASE and beyond…

    So looking forward to pfSense based on FreeBSD 10 for the SMP-friendly PF which I think should be called 3.0 instead of 2.2



  • @jimp:

    If all goes according to plan, the jump to FreeBSD 10.x will be better overall, and with most of the focus there rather than many new features, it may be sooner than expected for a release, but it depends on what challenges arise from FreeBSD 10.x in the meantime.

    That's great news, because judging from the feedback, FreeBSD 10.x seems to be noticably better than 8 and 9.

    Btw any progress with the plans to merge some of the pfSense patches back into FreeBSD-HEAD ? I noticed Ermal's posts back in June (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2013-June/thread.html) but didn't notice any news on that front.



  • Any support for Infiniband / Mellanox based tech ??



  • I would also like to see some infiniband love.  Drivers have traditionally been a big pfsense downfall as 802.11n support is still sketchy at best.  I hope 2.2 will add stable 802.11ac support.  With any luck, the enthusiast community can compile drivers and get a working infiniband solution since the drivers are available under freeBSD 10.

    I read on another post that there are additional issues with the GUI.  Correct me if I'm wrong, the GUI should have little to do with getting infiniband working.  The IB cards show up as NICs.  The major issue is getting pfsense to support the multiple (Wide) links associated with infiniband and pass the traffic accordingly.

    My goal is to make a infiniband bridge to other infiniband cards and to 10 and 1 GBE cards.



  • @AhnHEL:

    I know it's just a tag but it does feel good.  Another milestone towards RELEASE and beyond…

    So looking forward to pfSense based on FreeBSD 10 for the SMP-friendly PF which I think should be called 3.0 instead of 2.2

    It will be 2.2, as the SMP (and CARP, don't forget CARP) were done such that it is largely transparent to the end-user.

    3.0 implies an architecture change.



  • @33_viper_33:

    I would also like to see some infiniband love.  Drivers have traditionally been a big pfsense downfall as 802.11n support is still sketchy at best.  I hope 2.2 will add stable 802.11ac support.  With any luck, the enthusiast community can compile drivers and get a working infiniband solution since the drivers are available under freeBSD 10.

    I read on another post that there are additional issues with the GUI.  Correct me if I'm wrong, the GUI should have little to do with getting infiniband working.  The IB cards show up as NICs.  The major issue is getting pfsense to support the multiple (Wide) links associated with infiniband and pass the traffic accordingly.

    My goal is to make a infiniband bridge to other infiniband cards and to 10 and 1 GBE cards.

    Infiniband:  meh  I'm a lot more interested in more solid support for 10Gb Ethernet, faster crypto, and faster filtering.



  • @phil.davis:

    Given the flurry of activity on Redmine and Github in recent days it looks like bits and pieces are being seriously tidied up, ready for a 2.1 release.
    Master has both FreeBSD 10 implementation, and new "PHP-based" features that do not depend much on the underlying FreeBSD version.
    A couple of questions:

    1. How is the progress on getting a pfSense 2.2 build to work based on FreeBSD 10?
      If that is going well, and we can have snapshot builds of master with FreeBSD 10 in the next few weeks, then ignore the next question.

    2. What is planned for the 2.1 branch? Will 2.1.1, 2.1.2… be purely bugfix releases? Or will they also accept functional changes that are not dependent on moving to FreeBSD 10? Will 2.1.n snapshots continue to be built after the formal 2.1 release?
      It might be handy to provide a path for a little while that allows new functionality to be released without requiring that sites jump to FreeBSD 10. (Then again, FreeBSD 10 might be so good and stable that everyone hurries to get on the pfSense 2.2 bandwagon...)

    there will be a 2.1.1 release.  It will be out "Real Soon Now" (tm, as jimp joked)

    In part it will include better support for certain Intel Ethernet drivers.



  • pfSense 2.2 snapshots are available as of today as well.  :)

    https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=74154.0



  • Heck, there was even a 2.1.2.