Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:08:02 +0100 From: Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org> To: Matthias Fechner <mfechner@freebsd.org> Cc: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 2b48bc59c42b - main - ports-mgmt/poudriere-dsh2dsh: added fork of poudriere 3.4.99.20240812 Message-ID: <CAFDf7UJjjMeO%2Bn3nGkux_kGUUXEQN__45JG9Q=TDT8aiZ6H2zw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <65eefb24-8a33-4e32-8555-edc823cdd014@freebsd.org> References: <202410211754.49LHsdio059991@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <c296efa8574620b2e15a94962b7da973@mail.infomaniak.com> <65eefb24-8a33-4e32-8555-edc823cdd014@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] Hello, Awesome features like those presented in poudriere fork should be included in main port as development options so people could test it properly. The problem of a fork is that it will eventualy diverge from main project and it can get into future problems. Choosing between poudriere and poudriere-devel is already a difficult decision to make related to reliability/stability/new features... This is only a vague opinion on what I feel about a poudriere fork port. I vote for port OPTIONS giving an oportunity of big testing features A, B, C, etc. Cheers, Matthias Fechner <mfechner@freebsd.org> escreveu (terça, 22/10/2024 à(s) 05:12): > Am 22.10.2024 um 00:33 schrieb Daniel Engberg: > > While we do not have any written guidelines about the selection of > > projects to be added to the tree this seem like a counterproductive > > move given it's maintained within the FreeBSD umbrella already and > > also potentially be perceived as poor management. Can you please > > elaborate about the reasoning of adding this to the tree? > > I do not understand why this is a problem. > The new version bring some signification performance improvements which > is very helpful to users. > For me, it drops the compile time of go based ports from 20-40 minutes > to 2 minutes which is a massive improvement for poudriere. > And if the developers do not include this modification, this is fine. > But I think it is only fair to give also the user a change to decide and > therefor are forks existing. > > Using a fork enable us to battle test new features without have an > effect to stability of the core poudriere. > > If the port get many installations that would also give an idea to the > developers how popular these modifications are and they can be included > upstream. > > Sry, but I do not get the point, why that would be counterproductive, I > see it exactly the opposite, it will help the poject to better get an > idea if these modification are requested by the community and if they work. > > Gruß > Matthias > > -- > > "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to > build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to > produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." -- > Rich Cook > > -- Nuno Teixeira FreeBSD UNIX: <eduardo@FreeBSD.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div><div>Awesome features like those presented in poudriere fork should be included in main port as development options so people could test it properly.<br></div><div>The problem of a fork is that it will eventualy diverge from main project and it can get into future problems.<br><br></div><div>Choosing between poudriere and poudriere-devel is already a difficult decision to make related to reliability/stability/new features...<br><br></div><div>This is only a vague opinion on what I feel about a poudriere fork port.<br></div><div>I vote for port OPTIONS giving an oportunity of big testing features A, B, C, etc.<br><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Matthias Fechner <<a href="mailto:mfechner@freebsd.org">mfechner@freebsd.org</a>> escreveu (terça, 22/10/2024 à(s) 05:12):<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Am 22.10.2024 um 00:33 schrieb Daniel Engberg:<br> > While we do not have any written guidelines about the selection of <br> > projects to be added to the tree this seem like a counterproductive <br> > move given it's maintained within the FreeBSD umbrella already and <br> > also potentially be perceived as poor management. Can you please <br> > elaborate about the reasoning of adding this to the tree?<br> <br> I do not understand why this is a problem.<br> The new version bring some signification performance improvements which <br> is very helpful to users.<br> For me, it drops the compile time of go based ports from 20-40 minutes <br> to 2 minutes which is a massive improvement for poudriere.<br> And if the developers do not include this modification, this is fine. <br> But I think it is only fair to give also the user a change to decide and <br> therefor are forks existing.<br> <br> Using a fork enable us to battle test new features without have an <br> effect to stability of the core poudriere.<br> <br> If the port get many installations that would also give an idea to the <br> developers how popular these modifications are and they can be included <br> upstream.<br> <br> Sry, but I do not get the point, why that would be counterproductive, I <br> see it exactly the opposite, it will help the poject to better get an <br> idea if these modification are requested by the community and if they work.<br> <br> Gruß<br> Matthias<br> <br> -- <br> <br> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to<br> build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to<br> produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." --<br> Rich Cook<br> <br> </blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#888888">Nuno Teixeira</font></div><div><div><font color="#888888"> FreeBSD UNIX: <eduardo@FreeBSD.org> Web: <a href="https://FreeBSD.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://FreeBSD.org</a><br></font></div></div></div></div>;home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFDf7UJjjMeO%2Bn3nGkux_kGUUXEQN__45JG9Q=TDT8aiZ6H2zw>