From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 28 18:02:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3DC106566C for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gizmo.2hip.net (gizmo.2hip.net [64.74.207.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EB68FC1A for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:02:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-154-218-170.ard.bellsouth.net [72.154.218.170]) (authenticated bits=0) by gizmo.2hip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nASI2A4E017951 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:02:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) From: Robert Noland To: vehemens In-Reply-To: <200911271601.47677.vehemens@verizon.net> References: <200911261455.40399.vehemens@verizon.net> <20091127205335.GB81095@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <200911271601.47677.vehemens@verizon.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FreeBSD Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:02:04 -0600 Message-Id: <1259431324.2315.14.camel@balrog.2hip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_PBL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL, RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gizmo.2hip.net Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg ports roadmap? X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:02:16 -0000 On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:01 -0800, vehemens wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote: > > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens wrote: > > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split > > > ports into current and stable branches? > > > > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between > > so many different pieces. Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number > > of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't > > have been too hard. X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces > > with not-very-well documented interactions. > > > > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and > > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend > > on a number of X-related libraries. > > The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and stable > branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the source branches. > > A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be limited, > but work could still go on in the current branch. > > The MFC process could be semi-automated. This is hard enough to manage in src for one -CURRENT and 2/3 stable branches... Ports would be insanity and would in no way help to address the current issues or reduce the amount of work needed to get things done. robert. -- Robert Noland FreeBSD