Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:29:19 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Waschb=C3=BCsch?= <martin@waschbuesch.de> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PHP version retirement Message-ID: <CAP7rwcgJ9gReDfECqSLbHKxK5Y86guJSA0pq68pRjwp0eXt%2B8A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2DE6652A-86FF-4F07-9F8D-97E845D41E41@waschbuesch.de> References: <CF1F28D6-1072-4BE6-B124-A97DE43FA4E6@waschbuesch.de> <64faf143-bae3-378c-3ee2-b196c2ea4111@astart.com> <16731AF5-68E9-4E41-8D21-CF5917BE32A4@waschbuesch.de> <20190810231216.GA23293@lyxys.ka.sub.org> <CD11C7D8-DC57-4402-848C-06BBAD220D8B@waschbuesch.de> <D7D5D66C-AD53-4F2E-95E5-F0131DBC82AA@lastsummer.de> <CAP7rwcjR8SYmeJJe9KrmZRJj7qQpnjQ6N8kaqrdpDSDB4cFH6g@mail.gmail.com> <C6261FE6-1FAD-44D1-BD06-B33A0CEAAC85@waschbuesch.de> <CAP7rwcg%2B2GeMLz1a%2B-abcjNcA_-mE3B%2Bh5ovC5iU03EKiHbAZg@mail.gmail.com> <2DE6652A-86FF-4F07-9F8D-97E845D41E41@waschbuesch.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:04 AM Martin Waschb=C3=BCsch <martin@waschbuesch.= de> wrote: > >>>> Furthermore, the argument that it is more more work to maintain an a= bandoned version is silly because it=E2=80=99s more work to delete a port t= hat to just keep it in the tree for a while longer. > >>> > >>> That last part isn't correct. The work of deleting the ports is > >>> largely automated and simple, and it will always happen eventually. > >>> The work involved is in supporting unsupported versions. Our php team > >>> is spread very thin, and they simply cannot support php versions > >>> outside of upstream development. There are no resources to backport > >>> fixes that may or may not be designed to work with older versions > >> > >> I do not understand this. At all. > >> And I sort of hope I misunderstood you, because it sounds like you thi= nk a maintainer is or may be regarded as someone who can be expected to pro= vide product support of some kind? > >> I find that notion worrying to say the least. > > > > If you believe that handling updates, analyzing submitted and upstream > > patches and development, and answering a bevy of questions for every > > major update is effortless, then you drastically underestimate the > > amount of work that goes into the ports tree. > > You completely misunderstand me. > I know there is a lot of effort going into this. I disagree only in that = I do not believe there should be any expectations towards maintainers. > It is voluntary work. Spare time, etc. I am grateful for the effort peopl= e put into this, but I strongly believe no one should act towards volunteer= s with any expectations as to what they should do, how much time they spend= , etc. > > So, I find it wrong to say, as I understood you, to remove a package from= the ports tree because otherwise others people, for instance users of Free= BSD, would have the *expectation* of receiving support for those packages. > That perception of any kind of entitlement towards volunteers is wrong, I= MHO. > > And that is why I answered that part of your message because it is not (f= or reasons stated above) a valid argument against having outdated software = in the ports tree. Ah! You're right, I did completely misunderstand you. You're correct that we don't provide any semblance of support for the upstream software. Absolutely, and under no circumstances should anyone have to. I'm referring to support of the port itself. Maintainership requires responding to private emails asking for help; evaluating, testing, and approving submitted patches; responding to PRs about changes or fixes or poor behaviour (90% of the time related to portmaster); responding to error reports; and so on. We do expect those things from maintainers, because those are what are required to keep the ports tree running. And we actively drop maintainership from ports where maintainers routinely ignore those responsibilities, regardless of whether they have a commit bit. As decke noted, maintainership of a small port with relatively low deployment is pretty smooth (and don't get me wrong, they're as or more important than the big packages). But a huge and complex framework like php is a massive undertaking, with a near-constant barrage of complex patches that require highly complex testing strategies, and thousands of dependent ports to worry about for every change. I suggested that it might be possible for stale languages to remain in the tree, as long as the above support wasn't required or expected. But, honestly, Franco's response mocking the offer made my desire to help him somewhere at or below zero, and has pretty much ensured that nobody else in portmgr is going to be eager to get skin in the game. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwcgJ9gReDfECqSLbHKxK5Y86guJSA0pq68pRjwp0eXt%2B8A>