From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 17:29:27 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 CC0A9D22; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 217871239; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.23] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6025C438BC; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:29:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <52E3F454.3020206@marino.st> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:28:52 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? References: <52E2FA36.5080106@marino.st> <52E303CB.6020304@marino.st> <52E30990.2060903@marino.st> <52E33AA7.3080205@freebsd.org> <52E36BA1.5030900@marino.st> <52E37C16.5080901@freebsd.org> <52E3806D.4020902@marino.st> <52E3F03C.1060503@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <52E3F03C.1060503@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: marino@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:29:27 -0000 On 1/25/2014 18:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Still missing the point. Git can sit on top of svn. > Other than converting SVN to Git, I don't know anything about that. It would never be done in an official capacity. Git is not an official tool of FreeBSD. > From what I'm reading you may know how to use git casually, but not in > any other fashion than "it's like svn, but I have to commit twice". So you continue to be make bad assumptions then. I am a committer to DragonFly. We use git for src and ports. We use it more than casually. The maintenance of vendor branches is not standard at all, for example. > One can very easily use git-svn bridge to push git changes into > subversion. Or you can try to re-implement a patch queue based system > yourself using a bunch of duct tape and bailing wire and likely get > frustrated and either never complete it OR complete it and it's just not > even half as good as git as a patch manager. It's a solution looking for a problem. I'm not hearing anyone grip about the patches. It's not the bottleneck. I can only conjecture, but I from what I've seen, there's no way git bridges will be accepted as official methods. > Use the existing tools. > > I implore you to explore the idea of using existing tools to solve the > problem, or at least solve a part of the problem, instead of trying to > reinvent functionality that already exists. You are solving the wrong problem. And nobody is "reinventing" anything, which is weird to say because GNATS is far older than git and github. The tool set, archaic or not, is not presenting any kind of bottleneck. John