Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:41:33 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: michelle@sorbs.net, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date. Message-ID: <539DCCBD.7090405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140615161122.GB2586@home.opsec.eu> References: <201405170220.s4H2K0G0085365@freefall.freebsd.org> <538D0AAE.7090800@sorbs.net> <20140615111101.GM2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DA4F3.2060004@sorbs.net> <20140615142903.GQ2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DB9DD.3050603@FreeBSD.org> <20140615161122.GB2586@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --mfN8uCASbCDqx5DPAHMPsqUh8B9daKcQA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hello, >=20 >> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but = it >> seems you have beaten me to it. >=20 > Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! >=20 > Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from Michelle given the work she's already put into it. >>>>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into o= ne ? >>> >>>> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in >>>> devel - until it changes?) >> >> pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 >> which are all still receiving updates. >=20 > Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community= ? Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just skip to the latest, is the real question. Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip pgpool-II-3.2 and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month) expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide. I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches, then obviously we'd have to reconsider. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --mfN8uCASbCDqx5DPAHMPsqUh8B9daKcQA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJTnczEXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2NTNBNjhCOTEzQTRFNkNGM0UxRTEzMjZC QjIzQUY1MThFMUE0MDEzAAoJELsjr1GOGkATgO8P/0LwNxpYDzMsPgci+ZXEXLvS ZN2FoS/8FmSVwCkgvpq1TcQUaFPlot0e1OkYIz3mZAgjvy64uJxw/hDMlvFiMjXd S91x7Fq9Em63qujVxzWxO6M+ybydoSBwActqBPgeWFOs1AkzwQRTWmZgsBEOBhP1 n/i/pEw0pUhKlY7Xs6teNT37/BetlP6Ndt9hVszbhXuUcac4JiEOSDkNVK1A2fpO ZlwDKzLCM/XaV19RyfsBZM0B7SMqrTdHai4zPeSpV2oXzxsDQdP17ACKKxfh4xAM pmUjHRTx4u1vn2rZ+sC5UcarcDY1DXhloqVhhdnvEwtMK9hIAsq9Wa6rnUHIsFX6 Cg/iExl/+eL8zQbXkB3uJZDQCt2IjSbieyHEVraoXIAc37zAG7sFpy/0yLsFHT9W o8YhXj1tqqIabUKkmFw19jLmpICcz+kGFOE2MIOqH0o4tibNih2tPe7DwB37V9sW PbyP3O/xWpJ77f1P/sHSLvJeu6m84+QIVRzQR1NoIfoJNW/lsD6HVjiQmT3IfQxL 6d9+m9opSP3DjWhiKdypc8wnviPXVvMw/HMPbThfQEAlw7sekS1CPu9ZJBwr2RHR tsV5jRO2PrGiFcj8p3lyDAB6eu20N5z75ID/kmd4i12tgHBohH3wUytEao2xBG7R aO5KUOT/xZ0A7PUmiXc7 =LBtE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mfN8uCASbCDqx5DPAHMPsqUh8B9daKcQA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?539DCCBD.7090405>