From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Apr 20 07:44:41 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D227BD4764E for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66CA1FBC for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B2E4FD4764D; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B289BD4764C for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E4411FBB for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: (qmail 35595 invoked by uid 89); 20 Apr 2017 07:37:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@194.97.158.70) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 20 Apr 2017 07:37:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:37:50 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: Mark Linimon Cc: Julian Elischer , scratch65535@att.net, freebsd-ports , krad Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? Message-ID: <20170420093750.539a8d4e@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20170420053722.GD31559@lonesome.com> References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> <29e44642-e301-f07c-afe3-bad735d8ee5e@freebsd.org> <20170420053722.GD31559@lonesome.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.2) X-Face: $wrgCtfdVw_H9WAY?S&9+/F"!41z'L$uo*WzT8miX?kZ~W~Lr5W7v?j0Sde\mwB&/ypo^}> +a'4xMc^^KroE~+v^&^#[B">soBo1y6(TW6#UZiC]o>C6`ej+i Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAJFBMVEWJBwe5BQDl LASZU0/LTEWEfHbyj0Txi32+sKrp1Mv944X8/fm1rS+cAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAAL EwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH3wESCxwC7OBhbgAAACFpVFh0Q29tbWVudAAAAAAAQ3Jl YXRlZCB3aXRoIFRoZSBHSU1QbbCXAAAAAghJREFUOMu11DFvEzEUAGCfEhBVFzuq AKkLd0O6VrIQsLXVSZXoWE5N1K3DobBBA9fQpRWc8OkWouaIjedWKiyREOKs+3PY fvalCNjgLVHeF7/3bMtBzV8C/VsQ8tecEgCcDgrzjekwKZ7TwsJZd/ywEKwwP+ZM 8P3drTsAwWn2mpWuDDuYiK1bFs6De0KUUFw0tWxm+D4AIhuuvZqtyWYeO7jQ4Aea 7jUqI+ixhQoHex4WshEvSXdood7stlv4oSuFOC4tqGcr0NjEqXgV4mMJO38nld4+ xKNxRDon7khyKVqY7YR4d+Cg0OMrkWXZOM7YDkEfKiilCn1qYv4mighZiynuHHOA Wq9QJq+BIES7lMFUtcikMnkDGHUoncA+uHgrP0ctIEqfwLHzeSo+eUA66AqzwN6n 2ZHJhw6Qh/PoyC/QENyEyC/AyNjq74Bs+3UH0xYwzDUC4B97HgLocg1QLYgDDO1v f3UX9Y307Ew4AHh67YAFFsxEpkXwpXY3eIgMhAAE3R19L919nNnuD2wlPcDE3UeT L2ytEICQib9BXgS2fU8PrD82ToYO1OEmMSnYTjSqSv9wdC0tPYC+rQRQD9ESnldF CyqfmiYW+tlALt8gH2xrMdC/youbjzPXEun+/ReXsMCDyve3dZc09fn2Oas8oXGc Jj6/fOeK5UmSMPmf/jL+GD8BEj0k/Fn6IO4AAAAASUVORK5CYII= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:41 -0000 On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:37:22 -0500 Mark Linimon wrote: > I understand that having the quarterlies is not meeting your use case. > You've said that. We get it. > > So you want some kind of running -quarterly branch. > > But where are the N hours of work per week to QA all the patches to > the -quarterly branch, or a -stable branch, or whatever people seem > to demand, to come from? > > This is a serious -- if very irritated -- request. > > We've moved from a "we don't have enough person-power to manage a > ports branch" to "we kinda have enough person-power to manage both > head and a kinda-branch." OK. That isn't meeting all the use > cases. Understood. > > Are you going to volunteer for a team to run that QA? Who else do you > think should be on it? Clearly the current volunteers don't have the > bandwidth. It is hard enough just to kep ports-head building. Where > do the hours come from? > > You're comparing your expectations of the output of what a > professional QA team would do, to the work that N volunteers do. > Obviously the results are not comparable. It's crazy to think that > they would be. > > Honestly without some volunteers to do the _hard_, _unrewarding_, work > to QA the ports tree, this is all either a) just talk, or b) people > wanting volunteers to provide professional-level support, for free. > > tl;dr: provide some resources, or don't. I am getting to the point > where I don't care either way. All I see is the people who are doing > actual work get poked in the eye. > Answering one email in the thread to provide feedback on my experience. After some time it took to adapt, I find quarterly to be extremely useful to me, because a) as a maintainer, it provides a natural deadline when updates should be in the ports tree (as many users will use that for the next three months) b) it's the first time I'm actually using binaries from project servers on a few private hosts and vms c) as professional users, running our own poudriere builders, quarterly branches are useful as a baseline for our ports tree and patches to it. As many things in business are done on a quarterly basis, we simply create a new builder every quarter, build our package set, test the upgrades on staging machines and then change the repo URL on all productions servers and upgrade. So, even though things might not be perfect, to me it's a great improvement compared to the previous situation and I'm grateful to those who put lots of effort into it. -m -- Michael Gmelin