Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 01:09:56 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Andrej Zverev <az@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@freebsd.org>, "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/p5-Archive-Any pkg-plist ports/archivers/p5-Archive-SimpleExtractor pkg-plist ports/archivers/p5-Compress-LZF pkg-plist ports/archivers/p5-Compress-LZO pkg-plist ports/archivers/p5-Compress-LZW pkg-plist ports/archiver Message-ID: <4C9C5CD4.9080304@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100924004958.1fb10eeb.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTi=9ZfAhdkAZ5dhXebM=4dpnnmC83Awg9O6EeED9@mail.gmail.com> <4C9C4CDB.9000706@FreeBSD.org> <20100924071832.GB72615@FreeBSD.org> <4C9C52E0.2040507@FreeBSD.org> <20100924004958.1fb10eeb.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 9/24/2010 12:49 AM, Stanislav Sedov wrote: | On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:27:28 -0700 | Doug Barton<dougb@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: | |> |> I think Philip described the standard very well in the portion of the |> log that is quoted above. Personally, I've never seen or used such a |> comment in any FreeBSD port, and can't imagine any reason why someone |> would want to. | | I disagree. The only thing he described is that he preferred one way | over another as the standard one, You snipped the part that I included that clearly said 87% of the p5 ports did not have this comment. As I said above, 100% of the ones that I've ever worked with (which is a larger number than you might think) have not had it. That sounds like a de facto standard to me. | and I have not seen any comments | about who it was discussed with. Looks like it was one man decision | from 3rd party person perspective. At a bare minimum there should be | a list of person who took part in the discussion, and what was the | conclusion, because the commit itself, as was noted by osa@, has no | evident benefit. ... nor did it cause any harm. To me this (and your demand for documentation sound like a lot of bureaucratic BS over a trivial change. I understand very well the dynamic involved here, as organizations get larger they grow processes, bureaucracy, etc. But what would be nice here is if some intelligence could be applied to their formation. And this is not just a philosophical issue. The whinging about this has real impact on the people observing it. For instance, if I were a new user, someone thinking about making a contribution to FreeBSD, or potentially even a new(er) committer I would be looking at this thread and thinking VERY carefully about whether or not I would ever want to step even one little toe into the areas of infrastructure cleanup because look what happens to people that do. We have an enormous amount of "cruft" (and I'm really struggling here to try and keep this post PG) that has built up in the ports system over the years. At minimum we need to remove the non-functional elements in order to make sure that they don't impede future progress. At best we need to modernize and improve stuff that's broken, or even marginal because with well over 20k ports the edge cases significantly impair our maneuverability. I have a lot of sympathy for Philip here because over the years I've taken on a non-trivial number of similar projects, and not only is it thankless work but it paints targets on your back which don't need to be there. Philip has done a substantial amount of similar work in the past, and personally I would hate to see him discouraged by pointless whinging about a trivial change that can't possibly hurt anything. | Deciding what's standard and what's not only by use number is not gonna | work. I'm pretty sure that most ports doesn't fully respect PREFIX or | CFLAGS, but it's not a reason to drop it from ports that do. Or changing | all ports with dynamic pkg-lists to use static one just because most | ports do this. Sorry, those are red herring arguments because the things you're describing are real, functional items that provide benefit. If someone did sweeping commits to remove the things you describe I'd be right there with you saying that there better be a very good reason, advanced discussion, etc. This change doesn't even fall into the same neighborhood, never mind the same category. Doug - -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJMnFzTAAoJEFzGhvEaGryE6zMH/iJ5aHdWn37+OoNDEy++wFy0 hGBBgOEU7zUKKXQ0K4WgO2D4wBoSe5xdesxq+T92+l/DN9cHPoa0ew6iQVGHcade QGfyqQcqZ9ltKSs+nV5aBH2cBMcWCTQPZPTmdnb4TaYewfTvKp5JWW2RIZJmiX5Q m4iurcDxmShJyTO2muIr2TVEQhuErhAUwrAG0PCTunfOfpydyveup/9oZNk78tnF Jd9LPjWQVs14AhV+cUFei2pSrxzBpX5eyPRmsEhVrtY4shUPMxQxHHk5yDaR6j0n QBVFyE0nhP0w45OxtodSlLe4M4F1wqMuF8VeBOI3I+OjSJTF4T+/65QvBY1I7RQ= =lkPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C9C5CD4.9080304>