Skip to content

Conversation

@asomers
Copy link
Contributor

@asomers asomers commented Dec 3, 2025

And remove the obsolete FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE.

Sponsored by: ConnectWise
Signed-off-by: Alan Somers [email protected]

Motivation and Context

To do CI testing on the latest production release of FreeBSD

How Has This Been Tested?

CI change only; tested in CI

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
  • Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
  • Quality assurance (non-breaking change which makes the code more robust against bugs)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Library ABI change (libzfs, libzfs_core, libnvpair, libuutil and libzfsbootenv)
  • Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

And remove the obsolete FreeBSD 14.2-RELEASE.

Sponsored by:	ConnectWise
Signed-off-by:	Alan Somers <[email protected]>
*)
# default list
os_selection='["almalinux8", "almalinux9", "almalinux10", "centos-stream9", "centos-stream10", "debian12", "debian13", "fedora42", "fedora43", "freebsd14-3r", "freebsd15-0s", "freebsd16-0c", "ubuntu22", "ubuntu24"]'
os_selection='["almalinux8", "almalinux9", "almalinux10", "centos-stream9", "centos-stream10", "debian12", "debian13", "fedora42", "fedora43", "freebsd14-3r", "freebsd15-0r", "freebsd16-0c", "ubuntu22", "ubuntu24"]'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It may be discussed, but from the perspective of testing oldest and newest versions, I think "freebsd14-3r" and "freebsd15-0s" pair by default made sense.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With (I think) absolute majority of FreeBSD users getting ZFS code from the base rather than from the ports/packages, testing of the new changes is much more relevant on a FreeBSD version where they will likely run, which is stable, when with time it become the next release.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@asomers any thoughts on this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alexander's reasoning makes sense. But I think we should still drop 14.2-RELEASE. I can't think of any reason to keep testing there.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That part nobody objects.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be clear, as I understand it the request was solely to change freebsd15-0r back to freebsd15-0s for the default case.

@behlendorf behlendorf added Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing Status: Design Review Needed Architecture or design is under discussion labels Dec 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing Status: Design Review Needed Architecture or design is under discussion

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants