Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:21:38 +0400 From: Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@freebsd.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports tree tagging again Message-ID: <20060818122138.GF78016@underworld.novel.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060817082940.GB845@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20060816123335.GA42090@underworld.novel.ru> <20060817082940.GB845@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Peter Jeremy wrote: >=20 > There are severe logistical problems: Ports are currently expected to > build for at least 3 different src branches, with between 2 and 6 > different architectures in each. Multiply this by over 15,000 ports > and that process isn't going to work. And this ignores interactions Yeah, that's the problem we should find a solution for. > between port versions - you often can't upgrade a port in isolation > but need to have consistent revisions. That's not a problem, IMO. > >If both conditions are meat, the commit may be backported to STABLE. >=20 > How long are you going to wait for this? What happens if the commit > to HEAD works ok on some architecture/branches and not others? Debian uses 10 days or so. I think we could use something simular, 1-2 weeks or so. And about some specific arch issue, I think we should care about i386/amd64 first. --0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBROWw0oB0WzgdqspGAQIgTwP+NcW/g5ErIjm80nZgAHUYd8pjIf37hXdT Ui/4MGzEuYM2ryPsx+w7YPkihiSpXpU1x8+83uxmzB4PgzeMw0ezFZydmWXWxsTu qTzhTFlF/MZsznQ9k/75XmEs5IJqPSBZQwBXP2doH4fgTOfmFmk6/hNF1Nfk7/CB jfndJOP/XPE= =2vDM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060818122138.GF78016>