From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Thu Feb 4 15:18:10 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 B7BF8A997A3; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:18:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gahr@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.ptrcrt.ch (gahr.cloud.tilaa.com [84.22.109.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8487815C6; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:18:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gahr@FreeBSD.org) Received: from webmail.ptrcrt.ch (www.gahr.ch [192.168.1.2]) by mail.ptrcrt.ch (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id bbf1ecce TLS version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:18:05 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:18:05 +0100 From: Pietro Cerutti To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Organization: The FreeBSD Project In-Reply-To: <56B36ACE.1010506@marino.st> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <8b37e4951fc45b4f1eeaf5eb67f76804@gahr.ch> <56B36ACE.1010506@marino.st> Message-ID: X-Sender: gahr@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.4 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 15:18:10 -0000 On 2016-02-04 16:14, John Marino wrote: > 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. Fair enough. Let's just be clear and cautious when suggesting people to switch to beta software for their production needs. I'd be more than happy to give synth a go, but I won't change my scripts until I'm sure I won't have to change them every other day. Thanks for your work :) -- Pietro Cerutti gahr@FreeBSD.org