From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 18:41:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 802B8125; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EE7186F; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-76-21-10-192.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.10.192]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EB711A3C19; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:41:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E4056F.6050307@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:41:51 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? 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> <20140125183040.GB67763@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20140125183040.GB67763@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 18:41:52 -0000 On 1/25/14 10:30 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > 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 like >>>> 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 makes >>>> this all as easy github, but I somehow doubt that.) >>> That would imho be a total disaster, as less and less people will really take >>> care of reviewing the actual patch (lots of commits are already directly from Pr >>> patches without applying some necessary diff for consistency, correctness, Q/A >>> and cosmetic.) >>> >>> >> You are not serious. >> >> You are saying that because the process would be too streamlined that >> quality would be impacted? >> >> That is pretty entertaining. I've seen such positions, but only at very >> 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 githun 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 tools to > do any merge. >>> btw we already have tons of tools available to just merge patches directly from >>> gnats. >> Are any of these tools available on the other side? >> >> Ie, for port submitters? > yes porttools for example, or some scripts inside Tools/scripts > > regards, > Bapt Is there a primer on using these tools?