From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 28 20:25:27 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED3F1065693; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:25:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vehemens@verizon.net) Received: from vms173011pub.verizon.net (vms173011pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB698FC23; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sam ([74.100.237.5]) by vms173011.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KTU00I896248DGC@vms173011.mailsrvcs.net>; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:25:16 -0600 (CST) From: vehemens To: Robert Noland Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:26:34 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <200911271601.47677.vehemens@verizon.net> <1259431324.2315.14.camel@balrog.2hip.net> In-reply-to: <1259431324.2315.14.camel@balrog.2hip.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Message-id: <200911281326.35064.vehemens@verizon.net> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg ports roadmap? X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:25:27 -0000 On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:02:04 Robert Noland wrote: > On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:01 -0800, vehemens wrote: > > On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens wrote: > > > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split > > > > ports into current and stable branches? > > > > > > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between > > > so many different pieces. Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number > > > of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't > > > have been too hard. X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces > > > with not-very-well documented interactions. > > > > > > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and > > > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend > > > on a number of X-related libraries. > > > > The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and > > stable branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the > > source branches. > > > > A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be > > limited, but work could still go on in the current branch. > > > > The MFC process could be semi-automated. > > This is hard enough to manage in src for one -CURRENT and 2/3 stable > branches... Ports would be insanity and would in no way help to address > the current issues or reduce the amount of work needed to get things > done. You stated in a several earlier emails that you are having problems such as: a lengthy TODO list, complaints with ports breakage, coordination of multiple efforts to name a few. If you have a better suggestion, then please make it as we would all like to hear it.