Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:28:11 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <20140126192811.GC30300@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org> References: <CAHcXP%2Bew5qt5hc9Y%2BR_njPkfhUMsDDAqNk9aYSacV4PwBmqjfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaXnXwo4JxnRdffZfdvfETfhgJNkFM-N23H1SOT0G3-oMwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X2dQTTsbrTJg2iPT3qkfq7h9U8oGbRZXGAXH%2BJ2T4MFNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcXP%2BdtHPHT%2BFD8RdcqhGANBPf1Gk4N4coEpZY-eAuQE3iZtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-m3X2rWk-0k_yH1PK0iN_5YhvSh1UsV0VCrroJq==687X1ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <52E43A80.4030501@rawbw.com> <CAGBxaXnfb2yPZZCaf6mYzASzT13b68A8iPT6eUwUdU9W1ya_Qg@mail.gmail.com> <52E44BC1.7040404@rawbw.com> <CAGBxaXkCWAAfA%2B7x9-icTwO4Vd78EGOeh5-4eG3DUJ_gGVHT1g@mail.gmail.com> <52E46D44.6050403@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 06:04:52PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/25/14 3:48 PM, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> wrote: > > > >> On 01/25/2014 14:44, Aryeh Friedman wrote: > >> > >>> The key seems to be that no one has time to do the stuff they really = want > >>> to do (get new ports into the system)... to that end automating every= thing > >>> that can be automated is sure help free up comitter time so they can = look > >>> at what is interesting > >>> > >> Yes. I just can't imagine any generic port tests that can't be automat= ed > >> and coded into the script once and for good. > >> Ideal system should be like github with the added automated testing > >> between pull request submission and merge. It should either fail and n= otify > >> the submitter, or succeed and notify the committers. > >> > > Git hup (or *ANY* remote service for that matter) is a no go IMO >=20 > You just don't get it. >=20 > Again, you just really, really, don't get it. >=20 > You WANT a gateway to a remote service that the project does not have to= =20 > handle. >=20 > Why? Because then we offload the problem to another org. >=20 > The FreeBSD project should be about innovation in OS design, platform=20 > and software. Ops work is bunk and just slows us down. >=20 > The more we can outsource the better we'll be. (and what if that=20 > service blows up? well we move on! it's simple!) >=20 > Continuing to insist that we run the services ourselves it just wasting= =20 > our limited resources. Not only that but we get emotionally attached to= =20 > technologies that are old, dying and dead when off the shelf stuff works= =20 > just fine. >=20 Insourced or Outsource, or what ever once again the problem is to actually = do the stuff, setup, manage the migration and all of this is just about humans. We can change easily if someone is deciding to actually do something, with concrete proposition, and concrete actions. It is easy to just say use github or what ever other cool and nice service/tool/methodology. But that serves nothing if noone is willing to ac= tually do the job, really study what is going on behind the scene, what are the exhau= stive inpact of doing the change, what are the existing drawbacks how do we handle them etc. Once again the problem is not the tools, the problem is how many people are actually really going through PR, study them (no automated tools can do tha= t), run exhaustive tests (that can be automated and we have tools for that) do runtime test, most of the time this cannot be automated. Please instead of always coming saying what we should do and how stupid we = are not doing that, come with concrete proposition and willing to drive the cha= nge. FreeBSD is able to handle important changes, and accept that change pretty nicely as long as someone is driving the change and proving what he propose= is working. As a matter of example, we now have pkgng, which was proposed and developpe= d by a non freebsd guy at the time (me) and still accepted. The project gave me = my chance. We now have packages built on regular basis on completly new tools and new = way to build them and 100% automated. We now have signed packages (how many people have been talking about it for= years) on a completely new tools and new way to do it, the projet has accepted tho= se changes because someone was willing to drive them. So you want to improve how we handle Pr and get them committed in a faster = way great we really need someone to work on this and help improving the situati= on, you want to improve by going in a totally more modern, efficient way along = with new tools etc? hey why not? come to talk with portmgr, bugmeister, clustera= dm etc come to explain us what you want to setup, how, we will tell you what are o= ur requirements (there are lots of things in the background that may be inpact= ed) show us you want to drive that and that it is realistic. You cannot do it yourself because $reason, find someone else that shares yo= ur views and get him drive the project. That is how things works. You say debian is doing a better job? maybe, study what they do and come wi= th real proposition. FYI I have done all that work for the package side, and I continue doing it. studying debian, fedora, but also how things are done in other BSDs, Window= s, etc, and I'm trying to bring what I found the best of all of them without breaking to much at one (that is why pkgng is right now doing only 60% of w= hat I have in mind). Sorry I may sound a bit aggressive, but I'm a bit pissed of easy vague propositions with nothing real behind, right now from what you say except claiming you should do better I see nothing real based on facts, you even p= rove you don't know how we work on PR, what tools are available. You just want to promote the github way because you like it (great why not) The only point you gave us is about the lack of documentation for those too= ls, cool that a true point, will you help us on that? regards, Bapt --Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlLlYcsACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwaqACfS4kJqzBKFAi/ReBwymhYrbYI W7kAnAwJm3952V9m0So5ggRRRPX8LNRw =Qgdq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Clx92ZfkiYIKRjnr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140126192811.GC30300>