Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:44:52 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is pkg quarterly really needed? Message-ID: <20170420084452.GH74780@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <b9d24938-5502-cc69-30ed-1941c2517849@gjunka.com> References: <58F61A8D.1030309@a1poweruser.com> <CALfReyctL3vTt756oyh1ZTf%2BkgpAOHwp_SUZQCFQiZDccFNMow@mail.gmail.com> <ljhffcphq3bqr8dk2lrlld11ola28b7gqp@4ax.com> <29e44642-e301-f07c-afe3-bad735d8ee5e@freebsd.org> <20170420053722.GD31559@lonesome.com> <b9d24938-5502-cc69-30ed-1941c2517849@gjunka.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > I am not sure if this is a rant in favour or against quarterly branches. > And this discussion comes up again and again quite regularly. I wonder > why ports don't follow the development model of the FreeBSD kernel? - lack of developer time We have bapt who develops pkg. bdrewery, who does poudriere. A small group works on the ports framework. There are a few who report issues and fixes. I think that's it, and all work on huge workloads. They add features that are even more important than perfecting quarterly. Quarterly was not meant to fix all issues, it was meant as a test to learn what comes up if one provides some more stable pkg tree besides the HEAD. - lack of maintainer and committer time maintainers and committers have to track lots of changes, and it's already hard to keep up with HEAD and quarterly. So many changes are never merged to quarterly, because it's difficult to grasp side effects. About the 'lack-of-time': Please visit https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=dashboard.html and look at the numbers. Do it from time to time. Plot the trajectory 8-} Submit patches to the bugzilla project that allows us to track the trajectory 8-} So, in general: trust the folks who do the complicated work, and please react in a friendly way to issues you encounter. Report them using bugzilla.freebsd.org. Search on bugzilla for similar reports and add to them with additional tests, reports etc. If, after all this 'keeping-up' leaves you with spare brain cycles, start submitting patches, and learn the big picture. It's amazingly complex! > Then it would be a matter of creating a scheme for url addresses for > easy access to these folders with build packages. The scheme has to be implemented in the tools. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 3 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170420084452.GH74780>