From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 23:48:40 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 953A3BBF for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 630EB12DB for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id up15so4585963pbc.0 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:48:40 -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=921E+QZ33GEt3Bng+6sXgDRIDPK/0IiOHqw39rCS/jE=; b=VWhALd7qP6oPlNDQ4NQdWHVUjJOc51F+8Fs92Y+n6WMTzcX5vBUs3+yJtufjO/4guU aGJQjLYZ2qAIiWiNIba0Dps0eehtFm+2nvWskGFSiJQlaUsuRgdns4U1zcKfV9kCcYbh RfZv/d+YZ1LA8GOkyYO269PHJ/RH+S2ryvb2vmZU8dVqKMaVOwBbrRmHyXBm/k5aVlsf pRXS0A2p7OMjnPJ3OPzHitvu0/2WX6uAyM1dVjws5vVDsSE0FYuhx9L5yASSdjGkE3y/ eqw4BYTVZMoJW4WXopIxCJ7Qka/zvtpBDBFYnQA8G7lxvgutjMpjtrbsMlsR6op0MZoW 5pUQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.191.42 with SMTP id gv10mr22010174pac.125.1390693719931; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:48:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.155.38 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:48:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:48:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? From: Aryeh Friedman To: Yuri Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bernhard_Fr=F6hlich?= , Big Lebowski , 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 23:48:40 -0000 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 > > Today all committers do for ports is running some generic tests by hand, > like 'lint' with various flags. Install/uninstall/etc. No wonder this isn't > very a rewarding activity, and committers probably perceive it as a > necessary evil. The way how it is, it causes a waste of their time. > That's why I keep suggesting devel/aegis it does *EVERYTHING* git/git hub does but all locally and has the added benefit that you can not change the change set (aka port submission) until it has passed all 3 of the following (you can turn all but the last two off at runtime and the first only needs to build to pass at a min): 1. Develop change (To leave development it must build and pass *NEW* tests, this is where the automation should go) 2. Review (this is where human eyes come in once all the automated tests are passed) 3. Intergration make sure it plays well with others -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org