Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:33:41 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes Message-ID: <20160628213341.vvtobzbvxabphsqc@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <5772E90C.6020908@gmx.de> References: <201606272021.u5RKLVhQ057899@slippy.cwsent.com> <op.yjrc3knw57n2so@thoth.home> <20160628091709.pbvq7lekss2ql2en@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <5772E90C.6020908@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--q7x72cz5lllomj2d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 11:17 schrieb Baptiste Daroussin:
>=20
> > What you are asking is part of the blanket in particular when changing =
things in
> > individual ports, we expect committers to have a look at pending PR (ye=
s I know
> > I have been guilty of individual port change without sometime checking =
about
> > pending PR which was wrong from my side)
> >=20
> > For sweeping changes this is a bit different as when a change touches a=
large
> > portion of the tree we can not expect the committer to have a look at e=
ach
> > individual ports.
>=20
> Baptiste,
>=20
> to give you a provoking counter example:
>=20
> By that logic, I would not have been expected to notice that the
> bitcoin garbage insisted on db48, I could just have killed it off and
> moved the bitcoin ports onto db5. (That's stretching it a bit because
> there was Peter Wemm's objection to the DEPRECATED=3D tag on record alrea=
dy.)
>=20
>=20
> Meaning that, in this thread: I beg to differ on sweeping changes.
>=20
> These do need a thorough review, and often a series of -exp runs, to
> keep the number of casualties low. If I had gone by this policy of
> sweeping changes, we'd nuked all DB2, DB3 and DB4 ports and had force
> moved all the bitcoin and openldap ports and whatnot onto db5 without
> consulting anyone, and I guess we'd heard a lot more screaming than with
> the approach I chose, meaning look at several dozen of ports before
> committing the breaking and sweeping changes.
>=20
> And I do think we should, opposite to what you are proposing, make the
> committer spend extra time for high-profile ports that entail sweeping
> changes to chase down the breaking change to, say, a library port.
>=20
I might have been not explicit enough, of course any changes should be test=
ed,
and of course high profile ports breaking means special attention and preve=
nt
the sweeping change to actually happen.
Read the context... here we were speaking of changes that adds extra works =
for=20
maintainers on individual ports and the fact that someone should check for =
PR on
everysingle port that are going to be touched. In that case on a sweeping c=
hange
like what mat did for removal of ${PORTSDIR} you cannot expect the committe=
r to
check everysingle ports for pending PR, but of course you can expect that f=
or
every single change sweep or not the committer has to test all the ports to=
uched
by the change to ensure they do not break.
Bapt
--q7x72cz5lllomj2d
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=zZ6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--q7x72cz5lllomj2d--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160628213341.vvtobzbvxabphsqc>