From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 20:09:42 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 9DAED9DE; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:09:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248F91166; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:09:42 +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 588071A3C1E; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:09:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E41A03.9000807@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:09:39 -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: 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> <52E3719B.3040503@rawbw.com> <52E37C71.1060906@freebsd.org> <20140125175150.GB67191@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <52E401D6.8060908@freebsd.org> <20140125195231.GG67763@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20140125195231.GG67763@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Yuri , 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 20:09:42 -0000 On 1/25/14 11:52 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:26:30AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> On 1/25/14 9:51 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:57:21AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>> On 1/25/14, 12:11 AM, Yuri wrote: >>>>> On 01/24/2014 20:16, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>>>> (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.) >>>>> github itself is closed source, but 95% of its functionality is based >>>>> on git which is open. One only needs to invoke 3-4 git operations to >>>>> support what it does on the website side. Register on the site, fork >>>>> the project under user's login, submit a pull request, merge a fork's >>>>> branch to the main branch. All these are basically git commands. >>>>> Without the glossiness of github, this is not that large of a project. >>>>> Submitters will do the rest through git. >>>>> >>>>> I think, instead of tediously going through the PRs by hand, it is >>>>> wiser to set up some system like this. >>>>> >>>> Agreed. +1000 >>>> >>>> Although if we go down the rabbit hole of building something "like >>>> github" that might take a while. For now prototyping using the github >>>> pull methods might be a good proof of concept. I may look into doing a >>>> github pull request -> GNATS (src) PR gateway if time allows. >>> Once again github pull request is the worst way of merging patches that exists. >>> >>> We already have problem with ugly and inaccurate logs, such pull request will >>> make it even worse. >>> >>> Making proper merge from github pull request it not that easy, you will need to >>> fetch pull request as custom branches and cherry-pick them. That is really not >>> convenient. >> Probably a dozen lines of shell. >> > Actually no: add this to your git config file > > fetch = +refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/* > > Then all the pull request will be seen as branches you can safely cherry-pick. > Yes I know that... -Alfred