Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 23:35:58 +0000 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: "Tobias C. Berner" <tcberner@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r514669 - in head: . Mk/Uses archivers/kf5-karchive devel/kf5-extra-cmake-modules devel/kf5-kapidox devel/kf5-kauth devel/kf5-kbookmarks devel/kf5-kcmutils devel/kf5-kconfig devel/kf5-k... Message-ID: <20191020233557.GA4508@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <201910171806.x9HI6g9e044915@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201910171806.x9HI6g9e044915@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:06:42PM +0000, Tobias C. Berner wrote: > This release is part of a series of planned monthly releases making > improvements available to developers in a quick and predictable manner. Ouch. I know it's probably impossible to ask this, but ... is there any way we can limit the rate of change here? e.g. by -devel ports or something similar? Here's my worry (speaking as a powerpc64 guy). The big commit comes in; it takes several days for even one of our fast machines to catch up; then if we find any problems, more time to test patches; then time to submit/process the PR; only after which are the official package builders guaranteed to get the right result. w/rt powerpc64 especially, there are so many fast-moving large changes right now (base system compiler, ports gcc compiler, ports llvm compiler) + x11 + uh, whatever else, that IMHO we are moving farther away from our goal of having a usable package set (especially for ports-head) rather than closer. Your opinion? mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191020233557.GA4508>