From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 18:30:46 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145B7C65; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C08178E; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so4119543wgh.31 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:30:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=uLu4MwujgVsMEkrBcvYeq5jEmxantFEhKanjxc+xhyg=; b=Go8KyMQ8wsxJAHejen98M1FwzqkqlvPKBRDKDoTxcNsblXX3/QmKlfALjiB0ztcSk0 SaMoBemXKvLAXB8lZMiWaEbIGPJ1K62AdXwRt1la0fUZ2gJfIxA2OhOQpoveghHqZlb5 DKVaqrPuefUDleG7/v5muYkzQ2Jns7sYCqloiH3TnhBVz7Vj0SccNXTMWm4Q21VA3SHm MoHRF/4bFOWxUAdmL/GCfqegcJrRzvmGWJaaDBS5UQeOVCMlpqRediFmHT1DWRsVeRAQ kGwcQl5ELNeu3rYZuxQX4YjHhsvCP34J6+Tg2PT7KR8B+yrSoz7QI8Iqw/oGx3bfvpRc 6Iow== X-Received: by 10.180.105.41 with SMTP id gj9mr7101545wib.28.1390674643313; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:30:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ithaqua.etoilebsd.net (ithaqua.etoilebsd.net. [37.59.37.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ua8sm11571616wjc.4.2014.01.25.10.30.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:30:42 -0800 (PST) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:30:40 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <20140125183040.GB67763@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <52E2FA36.5080106@marino.st> <52E303CB.6020304@marino.st> <52E30990.2060903@marino.st> <52E33AA7.3080205@freebsd.org> <20140125174835.GA67191@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <52E40183.3090304@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52E40183.3090304@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:30:46 -0000 --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:07AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 9:48 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:16:39PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> > >> To me it would speak of tooling as opposed to anything. > >> > >> Does the ports system have a 1 or 2 click interface for merging PRs li= ke > >> for instance github? > >> > >> Could ports take PRs in the form of pull requests on github? > >> > >> Wouldn't that just turn the number of updates into a few minor clicks? > >> > >> (also wouldn't it make it easier for ports submitters)? > >> > >> (maybe there is some great ports system that I'm not aware of that mak= es > >> this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) > > That would imho be a total disaster, as less and less people will reall= y take > > care of reviewing the actual patch (lots of commits are already directl= y from Pr > > patches without applying some necessary diff for consistency, correctne= ss, Q/A > > and cosmetic.) > > > > > You are not serious. >=20 > You are saying that because the process would be too streamlined that=20 > quality would be impacted? >=20 > That is pretty entertaining. I've seen such positions, but only at very= =20 > large and derpy companies coming from people invested in broken tooling. I m saying that such tools as they are, are giving awful result, if we are = ever going to that can of direction, we will need to really take time to work on= the workflow and the tools, to make sure this is done a proper way, and no gith= un is not doing such things a proper way, I did learn that the hardway with pkgng developememt which is on github, I do not use anymorr at all their web tool= s to do any merge. >=20 > > btw we already have tons of tools available to just merge patches direc= tly from > > gnats. > Are any of these tools available on the other side? >=20 > Ie, for port submitters? yes porttools for example, or some scripts inside Tools/scripts=20 regards, Bapt --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlLkAs8ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex0yQCgwl17rBhZDkeDGkXiT5kK9hlI uwcAniM9kLllfqQpcUXfoOIOIfl4fkFA =9IXu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc--