From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 26 02:04:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886E390F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9951C86 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (c-76-21-10-192.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.10.192]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D0D81A3C19; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:04:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:04:52 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Aryeh Friedman Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? References: <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:04:52 -0000 On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri wrote: > >> On 01/25/2014 14:44, Aryeh Friedman wrote: >> >>> The key seems to be that no one has time to do the stuff they really want >>> to do (get new ports into the system)... to that end automating everything >>> that can be automated is sure help free up comitter time so they can look >>> at what is interesting >>> >> Yes. I just can't imagine any generic port tests that can't be automated >> and coded into the script once and for good. >> Ideal system should be like github with the added automated testing >> between pull request submission and merge. It should either fail and notify >> the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers. >> > Git hup (or *ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO You just don't get it. Again, you just really, really, don't get it. You WANT a gateway to a remote service that the project does not have to handle. Why? Because then we offload the problem to another org. The FreeBSD project should be about innovation in OS design, platform and software. Ops work is bunk and just slows us down. The more we can outsource the better we'll be. (and what if that service blows up? well we move on! it's simple!) Continuing to insist that we run the services ourselves it just wasting our limited resources. Not only that but we get emotionally attached to technologies that are old, dying and dead when off the shelf stuff works just fine. -Alfred