From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Thu Feb 4 15:14:29 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A93A99679; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:14:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1674E13B2; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:14:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2ED743BAA; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:14:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster To: Pietro Cerutti , John Marino References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <8b37e4951fc45b4f1eeaf5eb67f76804@gahr.ch> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Message-ID: <56B36ACE.1010506@marino.st> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:14:22 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8b37e4951fc45b4f1eeaf5eb67f76804@gahr.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:14:29 -0000 On 2/4/2016 3:54 PM, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On 2016-01-26 12:23, John Marino wrote: > I see ports-mgmt/synth is under heavy development, good. > I have seen a fairly large number of commits to that port lately, and > from what I've read in the commit messages, compatibility is not really > taken care of at this point. I seem to remember one commit where one > option changed meaning, another fixing a corruption issue, etc.. > This is *all good*, really, it's an indication that the project is > progressing. > But would you honestly advise people to use it in production? Yes. It's not at 1.00 yet. I'm getting lots of feedback and testing, and the commits are a reflect of that. When there is no more feedback, I'll move it to 1.00. I could have picked another name instead of repurposing a command, but for the long term, changing the command now to something intuitive is a small price to pay. > portmaster had its limitations, but I always found it to be reliable. At > least, it wouldn't change the meaning of options under my nose from one > commit to the next one. It's a beta/release candidate before the first release. I think it's permissible. Not ideal, but this would be the time to do it. By the way (for everyone), why not at least *try* Synth before declaring portmaster good enough? There were some die-hard portmaster users that changed over immediately and did not look back. Some poudriere users have changed, but not all (which is okay as poudriere is a fine tool). But I would advise actually given Synth an honest test and then remark on it. John