From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 18:21:13 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 E823BF7C; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-x232.google.com (mail-pb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC9711E7D; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:21:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rq2so5050574pbb.37 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:21:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Fbknb6IXLeuOWohjKwW8eYfqNxOjI+Gr5xZn09TXr10=; b=UcfnSmSaTbBT0Mg2lpdD+/hOe97VkFqc/P00SGWtXWWhJovot0/EDh8RDPfem/x0Tj OQFzTwgx+S09mYy0YKJW3UXITDN1X83WKlZOlxKd3OJPEbdH/3q8RWXzWkxnYJs7VLBt PiuuqBXjm0sleNwbHlsFCpGKYLpooKea0qxvLzKx5/BgiEIr2R3GkIifrrhKsIq3B7Wi /DgxLWphS76sdBxSOv1w/A+eurQTRZx+bfLwwSEG0l2mzq0tAmkSZc1tJFrNwX7LT4Ue /sE9mSgXjee4FqUUgmj3FsUtbmrfzeZMnhYaehyi/Zsi4algZDl4CKyAmpqRqDoO77KQ RB6w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.182.199 with SMTP id eg7mr26045554pac.135.1390760473304; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:21:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.155.38 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:21:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52E55186.7020009@freebsd.org> References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> <52E55186.7020009@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? From: Aryeh Friedman To: Alfred Perlstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: Big Lebowski , freebsd-ports 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: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:21:14 -0000 just do us a favor and do not assume newer means better... On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/26/14 5:25 AM, Big Lebowski wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> On 1/25/14, 9:04 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> >>> On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/25/2014 14:44, Aryeh Friedman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The key seems to be that no one has time to do the stuff they really >>>>>> want >>>>>> to do (get new ports into the system)... to that end automating >>>>>> everything >>>>>> that can be automated is sure help free up comitter time so they can >>>>>> look >>>>>> at what is interesting >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I just can't imagine any generic port tests that can't be >>>>> automated >>>>> and coded into the script once and for good. >>>>> Ideal system should be like github with the added automated testing >>>>> between pull request submission and merge. It should either fail and >>>>> notify >>>>> the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers. >>>>> >>>>> Git hup (or *ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO >>>> >>> >>> You just don't get it. >>> >>> Again, you just really, really, don't get it. >>> >>> You WANT a gateway to a remote service that the project does not have to >>> handle. >>> >>> Why? Because then we offload the problem to another org. >>> >>> The FreeBSD project should be about innovation in OS design, platform >>> and software. Ops work is bunk and just slows us down. >>> >>> The more we can outsource the better we'll be. (and what if that >>> service blows up? well we move on! it's simple!) >>> >>> Continuing to insist that we run the services ourselves it just wasting >>> our limited resources. Not only that but we get emotionally attached to >>> technologies that are old, dying and dead when off the shelf stuff works >>> just fine. >>> >> >> I've read all 60 or so messages in this thread and there really are two >> related but distinct issues here. >> >> The thread title is "What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays?". >> This has meandered into a philosophical debate about who knows what and who >> knows squat about version control systems, whether we need to maintain >> certain requirements, testing ports, etc. >> >> I like the KISS approach myself. This can be boiled down to those two >> issues, one of which is a symptom of the other. Arguing and debating over a >> long term solution to the OP's question does nothing to solve the problem >> in the short to intermediate term. There are 1680 current ports related >> PR's at this moment. >> >> As we all know, the committers are volunteers, mostly with real jobs and >> real lives and they obviously cannot keep up with the current load. The >> short to medium term solution for that is more committers. I'll add my name >> to the list of those who are willing to step in and help to clean up the >> mess. I'm certain that if a request went out, there would be many who are >> more qualified than I. >> >> At the same time, a group of interested individuals should offer input to >> the folks who already are looking at changing the bug reporting system away >> from gnats - https://wiki.freebsd.org/Bugtracking/BugRelocationPlan. >> Doing it in one fell swoop might make sense. It's "ripping off the bandaid" >> but I'd rather do it only once myself. >> >> What does *not* make sense is a new port for what might be a very useful >> tool waiting since September for someone to look at it. Arguing over git >> and subversion et alia does nothing to fix that. As they say on the ESPN >> NFL pregame show, "C'mon man!". > > > I can't agree more. I can see, understand and accept reasons why we cant > move from SVN to GitHub/Git and I certainly dont think that it would be > solution to current problems. It seems like this is not neccessary, it wont > happen, so I think we can end that discussion here. However, we do have all > the tools to automate this process, so I really dont understand why not to > do this, especially it is perfectly doable with SVN, Redports are already > doing so, and there are people willing to work on it. > > > Thanks Big Lebowski ! > > I'm not sure if taking your word for it will be the be all and end all of > progress on this issue. I do have hope, after all as Max Planck said: > > "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and > making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, > and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." > > I just have my fingers cross that we are not so insular, so heels dug deep > in the dirt, and so curmudgeonly that we drive away anyone interested in > new technology. > > I mean, if we're all so firm in our beliefs there are dozens of other open > source projects that encourage new things that people will flock to. > > > -Alfred > > > -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org