Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 01:56:03 -0500 From: Aryeh Friedman <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What is the problem with ports PR reaction delays? Message-ID: <CAGBxaXkswipwmNREUDbspM0eYgfOgFOcCGetOtyeikgtatOOjQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52E5F14B.4060102@freebsd.org> References: <CAHcXP%2Bf6e-t--XbQPTH1goJp_CL7P=zTj5trZVWd4YZ_EsO9gw@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> <52E47EF7.7040402@ohlste.in> <CAHcXP%2Bfk2T1%2BoYW45BjcimujedJJ2uE%2BS-FutGbyam2i3QRnog@mail.gmail.com> <52E55186.7020009@freebsd.org> <CAGBxaXnh1YTMJngZ0d7h4wcaZ4kh64jZQfAnyCqwaNCj3_Wwhg@mail.gmail.com> <52E55361.3000108@freebsd.org> <CAGBxaX=uphacTvZrTg7Sg2-v1arJX4ujCgBGJP%2BRMPu10UCS7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBxaX=SkHEfOcSiFDaNp8LETchCQCTMM%2Bdea8nTJgm2-rhbbw@mail.gmail.com> <52E5757F.8000604@freebsd.org> <CAGBxaXmngQitdDQsW8hOUWreqvmftTFHR1OK3c1NuOYDUdBJtQ@mail.gmail.com> <52E5CBDD.4090803@freebsd.org> <CAGBxaX=%2Bxu=-eikZS08XMFHK=-Lgft%2BAF_%2BKC%2BmLdU5yiKoV2A@mail.gmail.com> <52E5F14B.4060102@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>wrote: > > I'm not sure, I'm going to go load up healthcare.gov to see if I can > order myself some free aspirin after this "discussion". > At least my build system has never caused me to need an aspirin (normal debugging is bad enough). Sarcasm aside, to bring this thread back on track, the important issues are: * The development model used by aegis is likely the cleanest development cycle I have seen (main reason for this is Peter Miller is one of the few SCM and build management theorists [vs. just hacking something til it works]). The model is namely (repeat as needed) develop->test->review->integrate... note that test comes before review for the simple reason to even get to review you must build correctly and pass all your own tests (isn't this the main goal of automating the port system anyways)... also keep in mind we can use this model without necessarily switching to aegis per se. With or without aegis, it would save the ports team a lot of time to be able to build and test a port automatically before they spend any time reviewing the code. Aegis, by default, enforces this model. * GitHub *REQUIRES* all developers (including all port maintainers -- not just the committers) to switch to GitHub. On the other hand, if the ports team were to use aegis and/or cook, this would NOT require any changes at all from the POV of maintainers. Even on the ports team, most members would need to learn nothing more than 6 new basic commands... (portmgr@would need to learn a lot more though depending on what kind of non-standard processing needs to be done in integration). * If there are modifications to the overall port system, switching to aegis and/or cook would not require changes to individual ports like GitHub seems to > I skimmed the rest of your message and nothing really stuck out as > something worth perusing. I guess I have to say is that I hope you enjoy > Agis so much that you and the 10 other people using it are able to > proselytize it to the success that git and github have had. You certainly > seem passionate about it! > It would be nice if you could refrain from commenting on stuff you can't be bothered to "peruse." -- Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGBxaXkswipwmNREUDbspM0eYgfOgFOcCGetOtyeikgtatOOjQ>