Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:49:16 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VMSzbA==?= Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> To: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r504590 - in head/net: samba46 samba47 samba48 Message-ID: <20190702204916.1731ff30@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <122bd115-6a91-bf50-f23a-75871d193cb7@FreeBSD.org> References: <201906192240.x5JMequU017187@repo.freebsd.org> <20190628070305.eim4o3d77iyti5d5@ivaldir.net> <20190629160445.051f2426@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <CALdFvJHK0aBF6oLTFNnTiUyrmFUHCPYm3-k7S3_-FpYTHW4WSA@mail.gmail.com> <F208C261-18D8-4E5A-BABE-A9E6D8A52B5B@FreeBSD.org> <CALdFvJENynqPAkKSf5ueuG2nBMr9tckikzZOQv9caXtgcwZg4A@mail.gmail.com> <20190702102316.wv6w5u2ilfaw6vrd@atuin.in.mat.cc> <d9d37be2-8279-af6a-1283-67f25f4f8835@toco-domains.de> <20190702111647.vozqzf4gnqbajvcl@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20190702142827.120588a0@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <122bd115-6a91-bf50-f23a-75871d193cb7@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:53:31 +1000 Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 2/07/2019 10:28 pm, T=C4=B3l Coosemans wrote: >> It's probably time to introduce some sort of a soft freeze where no >> major changes are allowed (unless approved by portmgr) in the last two >> weeks or so of the quarter. It's not just samba, x11@ moving the mesa >> ports to llvm80 on the last day of the quarter is also way too close. >=20 > -1 on freezes, while I certainly understand the initial motivation for > something like that. >=20 > 1) Quarterlies only gets a tiny proportion of bugfix commits merged from= =20 > the latest branch, so quarterly misses out on the vast majority of=20 > bugfixes, except for the first week of the new quarter while everyone is= =20 > keen. > > 2) Anything that slows down or blocks development is a dealbreaker.=20 > While I understand and agree that quality outweighs performance, we have= =20 > enough issues affecting productivity/cadence. We need both. >=20 > 3) portmgr and ports-secteam are going to struggle to handle more=20 > workloads. >=20 > 4) Vesting more power and responsibility in centralized and opaque=20 > structures takes away the ability of the project to scale, and is=20 > difficult to revert once established. We need to get better at doing=20 > things as a group, without requiring someone to tell us yes or no. >=20 > 5) "major changes" is easy for the obvious cases, but not so much for=20 > the rest. There are plenty of so called 'trivial' changes that cause=20 > widespread regressions, sometimes not so obvious, and sometimes not=20 > resolved until much later. Should no updates to any port that has more=20 > than X dependencies occur in the last Y period of the quarterly window?=20 > What if its a bugfix release? What if its a security release? >=20 > The notion that quarterly is stable by way of the "lack of commits"=20 > needs to be replaced with the understanding stable means "lack of bugs" >=20 > We should instead be working on strategies and programs to get the most=20 > developers leveled up on QA, making failure fast, *and* (very) cheap,=20 > and making sure that most if not all bugfixes are *actually* merged. I think you are focusing too much on the words "freeze" and "portmgr approval" in my message and missing all of the vagueness I put into it. It's probably sufficient to send an email to ports-developers@ two weeks before the end of the quarter to remind everyone it's the end of the quarter so please be a bit more careful and if you think you really need to do something risky that just cannot wait ask portmgr for their input. What is major or what is risky is up to the committer to decide. I'm not at all proposing that everybody needs to have their commits rubber-stamped.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190702204916.1731ff30>