Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:00:40 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: bf1783@gmail.com Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <9352461C-9DEA-4778-8FAF-B60E22A4A7AB@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=n5n8Q%2BRkEH2EBtu0oVdTCC_ikaGdMO10Aoyuj@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=n5n8Q%2BRkEH2EBtu0oVdTCC_ikaGdMO10Aoyuj@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and >>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors. >>=20 >> Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way = about? >=20 > We need not look any farther than this episode to see an example of > how things could have been handled better. I don't think that the > course of action that was ultimately adopted was unreasonable, but did > we have to wait from the 8 October, when I filed > ports/151312 I quote from the PR log: State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended State-Changed-By: ade State-Changed-When: Fri Oct 8 16:40:29 UTC 2010 State-Changed-Why: gnu make 3.81 -> 3.82 is, sadly, exceptionally non-trivial. A number = of features present in releases prior to 3.82 are technically "wrong", = and this release has corrected them. A _lot_ of stuff breaks. It will be looked at, but don't hold your breath. Plenty of other stuff was happening in autotools-land at the time. We = had already run a previous preliminary analysis of gmake 3.81->3.82 and = it was _not_ pretty. That update to the PR took just a little under 2 hours from initial = submission. Suggesting that it took until March 11th is disingenuous at = _best_ > to learn what was actually broken by the change, so that we could > begin to fix it? This requires multiple -exp runs. A number of ports that failed with = 3.81->3.82 have a non-trivial number of ports that depend on them. = Simply taking the first set of breakage does _not_ present the entire = picture. Short term hacks, such as allowing those ports to build with = 3.81 are _required_ in order to fully understand the depth of the = situation. Infrastructure work is a painful experience. Throwing out a PR with = "exp-run probably desirable" is not particularly useful, and shows a = certain naivety when it comes to such wide-ranging changes. It is a = highly iterative procedure, requiring many man- and cpu-hours of work. = Those of us that do it may not be doing the best possible job, but = there's a distinct lack of volunteers to actually run the process. = Behind closed doors, and in the Cabal Club, of course. *sigh* -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9352461C-9DEA-4778-8FAF-B60E22A4A7AB>