Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Sep 2024 11:15:13 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 280532] www/forgejo: LTS
Message-ID:  <bug-280532-7788-QnEaekXPSU@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-280532-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-280532-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D280532

--- Comment #6 from Marko Cupa=C4=87 <marko.cupac@mimar.rs> ---
(In reply to Stefan Bethke from comment #5)

I can't speak for other users, but regarding forgejo I'm refugee from
www/gitlab@ce which is maintenance nightmare. Upgrades, or even minor versi=
on
updates fail quite often.

Forgejo (currently 7 branch) has all the functionality I need. AFAIK general
purpose of any LTS is to not get too much attention from dev team, while st=
ill
getting enough attention from security team (meaning no new features while
resolving stability and security issues).

I wouldn't mind tracking latest and shiniest if forgejo upgrades to major
versions don't introduce any problems. I guess only time will tell.

I'm newbie to porting, I maintain a few simple ports where bumping revision=
s in
Makefile, `make makesum`-ing and generating new pkg-plist is all it takes.

What do you think of the following: I copy your www/forgejo port from 7.x
times, and maintain it by bumping revisions so you can concentrate on latest
developments. If I run into problems I can't resolve on my own (eg. new min=
or
version of 7.x does not compile, or it does compile but won't work etc.), I=
 ask
you for help.

Thank you in advance,

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-280532-7788-QnEaekXPSU>