Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:47:39 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060817124739.GA3643@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060817053955.GD62148@underworld.novel.ru> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> <20060816172835.GA29719@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060817053955.GD62148@underworld.novel.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:39:55AM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >=20 > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:33:35PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > >=20 > > > 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 > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > If this comes up every few months, then it's really needed, isn't it? No, it means that a handful of people think that it would be great if the rest of the people all started doing more work to support their idea. > > 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. >=20 > That's wrong. That requires a lot of manpower, and without help from > every maintainer it would be very hard. But that's the point; it requires a lot of manpower and/or help from every maintainer, no matter how you do it. So either you're correct and this is something that users and maintainers are crying out for, in which case they'll contribute to your project, or you're not correct and we'd just be doubling the workload on already overworked committers and maintainers. kuriyama's proof of concept shows that the infrastructure for supporting such a third party ports project (i.e. importing the freebsd ports tree into another repository, and then merging from there to your other branches) is not difficult to set up; so if you and others think that a stable ports branch is a worthwhile project, then take the lead, go and set it up, and if there's truly a demand for it then you'll see the evidence of that. You're not going to get anywhere if you expect someone else to do the hard work for you. > And I personally have no enough resources to provide binary packages > for all supported arches (and I'm not sure about i386 even). Neither do we, so packages for a stable branch are infeasible anyway. Kris --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE5GVrWry0BWjoQKURAn22AKCnVOC0lvkICbMVop7KNQqEmTQdeQCfQimX Tz4tbftVtjCuYzs8T8IJEco= =L/R3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060817124739.GA3643>