Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:14:16 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update Message-ID: <20100918141416.30dcba2a@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <4C9306B2.9010401@bsdforen.de> References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> <4C9306B2.9010401@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/iuIIb_tt8tG4RWt_SdbMRoz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:12:02 +0200 Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: > On 17/09/2010 06:41, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote: > >>> Dominic Fandrey<kamikaze@bsdforen.de> writes: > >>> > >>>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > >>>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze@bsdforen.de) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build > >>>>>> dependency? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any > >>>>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how > >>>>>> rebuilding all the software improves it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I > >>>>>> don't understand and that worries me. > >>> > >>> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't > >>> catch. > >> > >> We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes. > >=20 > > Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write > > what I was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_ > > intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test > > changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this, > > although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated > > example of why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports. >=20 > I used to disagree with this, because I thought it would create > additional work load.=20 Indeed. And the increase it's not linear. > I have come to think more favourably of the idea, because you can > make more daring commits on a -dev branch and don't have to quick-fix > everything that goes wrong. Oh? (Not that I think fixes are being done that quick right now.) You need to do it fast, except for tip ports, because ports depend one on an other. > Also the time between a MFC does not have to be very long. A week > should be more than enough time to uncover and solve all problems. > So the delay to get updates and fixes on the -stable branch is not > very long. So you'd need a large userbase running -dev ports and updating very frequently. My2c: let's concentrate on pkg_install for now. --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B --Sig_/iuIIb_tt8tG4RWt_SdbMRoz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkyUnw8ACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeW4XQCgllPcKG/BlylWCNp1d5n79iOr un0AnRqDaBk3/JCu2o2xnsqxDP3DlHGs =wdpc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/iuIIb_tt8tG4RWt_SdbMRoz--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100918141416.30dcba2a>