Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:28:36 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060816172835.GA29719@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > II Solutions >=20 > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it,=20 > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all=20 > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things: > - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well > (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds) > - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it > broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok I'm not going to support this effort as part of the CVS ports tree (for the usual reasons when this comes up every few months), but there's nothing stopping you+your collaborators from maintaining your own stable ports tree in your own repository and providing your own support for it. I think someone (kuriyama?) was in fact already doing this, so getting the project started would not involve much work. Kris --WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE41XDWry0BWjoQKURAmPsAJ9cVfZALu0YN9UiQJmCjj2GB5hPMwCffZtX A46rnOvkszx0HS9BIjQLBL8= =svfi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060816172835.GA29719>