Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:18:05 +0100 From: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, owner-ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <cfb249942314fd667f3af9e72f4315af@gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <56B36ACE.1010506@marino.st> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <8b37e4951fc45b4f1eeaf5eb67f76804@gahr.ch> <56B36ACE.1010506@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-02-04 16:14, John Marino wrote: > On 2/4/2016 3:54 PM, Pietro Cerutti wrote: >> On 2016-01-26 12:23, John Marino wrote: >> I see ports-mgmt/synth is under heavy development, good. >> I have seen a fairly large number of commits to that port lately, and >> from what I've read in the commit messages, compatibility is not >> really >> taken care of at this point. I seem to remember one commit where one >> option changed meaning, another fixing a corruption issue, etc.. >> This is *all good*, really, it's an indication that the project is >> progressing. >> But would you honestly advise people to use it in production? > > Yes. > It's not at 1.00 yet. I'm getting lots of feedback and testing, and > the > commits are a reflect of that. When there is no more feedback, I'll > move it to 1.00. > > I could have picked another name instead of repurposing a command, but > for the long term, changing the command now to something intuitive is a > small price to pay. > > >> portmaster had its limitations, but I always found it to be reliable. >> At >> least, it wouldn't change the meaning of options under my nose from >> one >> commit to the next one. > > It's a beta/release candidate before the first release. I think it's > permissible. Not ideal, but this would be the time to do it. > > By the way (for everyone), why not at least *try* Synth before > declaring > portmaster good enough? There were some die-hard portmaster users that > changed over immediately and did not look back. Some poudriere users > have changed, but not all (which is okay as poudriere is a fine tool). > But I would advise actually given Synth an honest test and then remark > on it. Fair enough. Let's just be clear and cautious when suggesting people to switch to beta software for their production needs. I'd be more than happy to give synth a go, but I won't change my scripts until I'm sure I won't have to change them every other day. Thanks for your work :) -- Pietro Cerutti gahr@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cfb249942314fd667f3af9e72f4315af>