From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 27 05:02:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CE4BA41; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE6EF1F39; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id un15so5441879pbc.10 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:02:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Vr3BrIzOPjd4q4AoOkFeazKHlvklqHOOblZrulold2Y=; b=uyu4AUiFNbjHRdKB6wEaJKFHWPNTOOiA8lWoT9+qVz57khsy4l/BKs8YXy7DwZIEAu 53+AYpcJG97TIEHkIw3d4i2aYlHEVuZkkaMSzwy2uHKc5fG/WgBYKP2D4eo5iRMAhl0Z frY4iqVmfjC7p1d0+9l+DK3DDEKHZhpBpxkOQfuTmO9r421MqWjVQfEm2M9IIw31H8Qo X1nvpxmFhvcPN0U/Z6EMI8bsaiAMEKa0KHZfO7yccyKt1Gj1zomkwp+o8uPhH89jZ2rW l1oK+i+9ks3C9T0x95ujxj908JeLwB0aMGYyNhnz2sV3Zo7b467DWCCHL2we6e7ddppZ E5Tg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.231.169 with SMTP id th9mr27915227pbc.113.1390798977624; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.155.38 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:02:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52E5CBDD.4090803@freebsd.org> References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> <52E55186.7020009@freebsd.org> <52E55361.3000108@freebsd.org> <52E5757F.8000604@freebsd.org> <52E5CBDD.4090803@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:02:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? From: Aryeh Friedman To: Alfred Perlstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML 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: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:02:59 -0000 On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > I'm not addicted to newness. I think you just hate anything that is > popular and you're butthurt that something that's may have been ahead of > it's time was missed out on. This is no reason to dig your heels in and > complain as that accomplishes nothing. > I don't hate everything that's popular. For example, I use various popular applications such as Open Office and xfce, and I use Java. What I hate is stuff that doesn't work as advertised, no matter how popular. If popularity and hordes of "code monkeys" (as you insultingly call them) are so important to you, then why are you using FreeBSD instead of Windows? Better yet, if you like newness, how about Windows 8? > What I am interested in is: > > 1) leveraging the hordes of people that can submit changes to the project > because they know git. > This is a non-issue because, even if the ports team uses aegis and cook, the average port maintainer can still use svn and makefiles or whatever build tools they like. So the only important question here is whether aegis and cook can save a lot of time and trouble for the ports team specifically. > 2) leveraging the existing tooling that's available for FREE!!! for us to > use. (instead of rewriting wheels). > Perhaps you missed this, but aegis and cook are both free and open source (GPL). 3) reducing the overhead of contribution to our project by using existing > solutions and not requiring accounts to be made. > Even more reason NOT to go with something that is relatively new and largely untested in mission critical applications. Aegis, though not popular, is used in not just mission-critical but life-critical applications, i.e. things that absolutely must work the first time and every time. For example, one aegis user is St. Jude Medical. Have you actually installed and tested aegis are you just bad mouthing it? The reason for asking is it was designed on purpose to be a plug-gable architecture... namely all aegis does except for enforcing the dev/review/integrate cycle is act as a glue for *EXISTING* tools (see the manual for a full list of ones supported out the box and the requirements new ones must meet [note cook is used not make only because make is not powerful enough to take full advantage of aegis] > So what would using this aegis system buy us? > See http://osdir.com/ml/version-control.aegis.user/2005-05/msg00001.htmlfor a discussion of using it in linux kernel development > 1) doesn't have hordes of people that know how to use it. > 2) doesn't have a free hosting solution for it which provides tooling we > need for free. > Why does an internal version control system need any kind of web hosting at all? Be that as it may, aegis does have a web front end -- including RSS feed and other XML output -- as well as its command line interface. > It's not about NEW THINGS, although NEW THINGS tend to lead to better > systems... it's more about leveraging users and existing facilities. > ?!?!?!?!? How the does forcing everyone to learn something new every 6 months lead to the ability to leverage existing users and facilities... maybe my logic is faulty but isn't this almost a guarantee that no one will know what they are talking about because stuff moves too fast for them to keep up? I would rather see a list (even if a small list) of solid users who all use the system for mission critical apps (like hospitals). > Anyhow, it's not important, you want your toy, even though no one uses it. > Enjoy it. :) > For a list of some aegis users (every single one uses it for mission critical systems) see http://aegis.sourceforge.net/propaganda/sites.html > > If you want to be part of an "exclusive club" that only uses esoteric > tools and home-built Rube Goldberg scripts to accomplish what people are > doing with modern tools in less than half the time Aegis itself does not require scripts, although it can be used to encapsulate scripts. Every routine action (including distribution of baselines) is already encapsulated into a single command that typically requires only one or two arguments, in contrast to the much more complicated command lines associated with github's api (via cURL). For example, we use the following command line to create a new release of petitecloud: aeb cook-blank/deploy-remote and a normal everyday build requires just: aeb .... and in the same conversation be annoyed that there's a lack of people > signing up to work under those conditions then you need to take a deep > breath and look in the mirror. > > When your toy has a huge community that fulfills the requirements that I > have I'll check it out. When switching to Aegis gets FreeBSD the same > benefits of the github community and "millions of code monkeys" I'll be > cheering for it. > If having a million "code monkeys" is the mark of a good system, does this mean you regard healthcare.gov as a supreme master piece of software engineering? After all it has 500 million lines from god knows how many contributors... therefore it must be better? -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org