From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 18:26:40 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 754F127D for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:26:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EE51EB7 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:26:40 +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 ED2DA1A3C1A; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:26:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E55361.3000108@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:26:41 -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, Aryeh Friedman Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> <52E55186.7020009@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: 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: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:26:40 -0000 On 1/26/14 10:21 AM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > just do us a favor and do not assume newer means better... I've been using newer almost exclusively for the past several years and it is better. Open your eyes, people have moved on. -Alfred > > > 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 >> >> >> >