From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Apr 20 19:03:31 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 A9F92D4850C for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:03:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F69C1D7 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:03:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com (x52716ac7.dyn.telefonica.de [82.113.106.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3KJ3RnU092682 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:03:28 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host x52716ac7.dyn.telefonica.de [82.113.106.199] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> <29e44642-e301-f07c-afe3-bad735d8ee5e@freebsd.org> <20170420053722.GD31559@lonesome.com> <20170420084452.GH74780@home.opsec.eu> <99a57878-ae39-d2a4-fe35-023dae8b320b@gjunka.com> <20170420171119.GJ74780@home.opsec.eu> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: <127a5f89-93ba-aee4-14d3-41e2f2d71892@gjunka.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:03:22 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170420171119.GJ74780@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 19:03:31 -0000 On 20/04/2017 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> Fine, but would that be a good approach? Doesn't it look more like a >> process change than a code change? > For me, it does not look like a process-change only. > > I haven't thought through all the details, I'm going with my > intuition here (because thinking it through takes a long time). > > One number: I made approx. 40 commits to quarterly trees in 2 years, > and broke it one least once, probably more often. Go to > > https://secure.freshbsd.org/search?committer=pi > > and then limit the view to the 8 quarterlies and check those commits. > It might as well be my sloppiness, but... > >> Surely, some code would need to be >> changed but then again, wouldn't that be mostly configuration? > My gut feeling says it's more than a little change and a bit > of configuration. > I understand that the main problem with quarterly branches is that they start from an unstable edge and mature with time, then after three months at the most mature point they are being deleted and replaced with a new unstable edge. So, there is no good point of reference to use as a source of packages. What I described is taking the good points (maturing the code through progressing version upgrades from CURRENT, through STABLE to RELEASE) while keeping good builds as reference points (monthly in CURRENT since it changes more often and partial builds may be too often for the server to handle, fortnightly in STABLE, and weekly in RELEASE since it is expected to contain least breaking changes and full builds are preferred over partial builds). Only X last builds would be kept for each of these three branches. From that short description it should be more or less obvious if that approach is better/doable when opposed to quarterly branches? Grzegorz