Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:36:14 -0700 From: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "stable" ports? Message-ID: <20100330163614.GC47169@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <4BB1E695.2020104@gmx.de> References: <hoqikd$o2h$1@dough.gmane.org> <20100329172753.GB39715@wep4035.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <hoqrtp$u16$1@dough.gmane.org> <7d6fde3d1003300018gf395446g703cd287c6265a76@mail.gmail.com> <4BB1E695.2020104@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 04:55:01 PDT Matthias Andree wrote: > >I don't think this proposal is useful. Technically it would work, but socially >it wouldn't. Why? RELENG_* tagging would require that port maintainers oversee >the implications for all supported FreeBSD releases, possibly run tinderboxen to >test (and thereabouts) and would likely scare away maintainers. Not >exactly what we need. Maintainers are already effectively forced to run tinderboxen when commmitters respond to PR's with terse comments like "Build failed on FreeBSD 6.x, here's the build log, please look into it." ;) Not that I mind. I enjoy the debugging exercise. But if there's going to be increased pressure to use tinderbox, perhaps something could be done to streamline and speedup the creation of new jails? I'm not sure what I think about this proposal, however, or whether my relatively obscure ports will even be affected by it. So I'm following the discussion with interest but don't know enough to contribute anything useful. -- Charlie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100330163614.GC47169>