Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:04:40 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <051a31cc-8904-a633-e6da-1fbf8380c07c@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --lpMv28KEOCvrck7P54h0ntKRgAxCQQfBl Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="x5sRd4KRVT2GhshspEeMrOXX9bH7HidgR"; protected-headers="v1" From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <051a31cc-8904-a633-e6da-1fbf8380c07c@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version References: <CAO+PfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD+8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1498207665.2506.4.camel@gmail.com> --x5sRd4KRVT2GhshspEeMrOXX9bH7HidgR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/23/17 09:47, demelier.david@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 16:11 -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >>> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing >>> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be >>> a Really Good Thing for everyone. >> >> I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the >> mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being >> available once per release, or rolling with -head. >> >=20 > Quarterly branches do not solve anything. >=20 > A user installs a machine on March, it uses 2017Q1. Then in April an > additional software must be installed, as we are in April, 2017Q2 is > available so two choices: >=20 > a. the user keeps 2017Q1 but won't have any security fixes as it is not= > maintained anymore; possibly having security flaws. >=20 > b. the user switches to 2017Q2, this tree will probably have major > upgrades and possibly breaking existing stuff. >=20 > To me, quarterly branches are completely useless as they are not > maintained enough in time. Replacing them with release branches would > solve everything explained in this thread. Just responding to a message in this thread at random, and not specifically directed at the person whose message I'm replying to. This thread is exactly the sort of sterile argument that the brand new FCP process was invented to handle. https://github.com/freebsd/fcp Read the fcp-0000.md document for details on how the process works. If sufficient people really do want to change the way the ports are branched, then write a proposal. You're going to need to think about it carefully, and consider the needs of all ports users, not just your own specific case. Plus it will need to be achievable with the resources available. If you can get enough people behind your proposal to swing a vote by core, then changes will happen. Cheers, Matthew --x5sRd4KRVT2GhshspEeMrOXX9bH7HidgR-- --lpMv28KEOCvrck7P54h0ntKRgAxCQQfBl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEGfFU7L8RLlBUTj8wAFE/EOCp5OcFAllM2agACgkQAFE/EOCp 5Od+Dw//eaZUo1PGMBZWBpEdcW/XYBFETuF7MQ7PCAjx0APtnOky6wVvYLWy/gky yhgVDCaWwbIemqOoau2mGTTkCF9jali5mR//8rkhswKyJgGCv9wY2GHKjF1Mt9Zy S7C3BqZv/o5vlXXiG0z8vf8glbFhuxPorChXUe0DWiNLg/ORdzgapbtA7xmBGN5M NftC6TzyB5PMpcpO6d3ObIDgueO5PbVknEciccEVNdgRfRriqVLW9qXkhzDUlYYF furlACBIMKzhnkggkSwlArwUKZYNHY9Wm2FKJQfhyhbzKzb4KUUlV1zQzPrCig8U L9lfDBPpeHGcqTZtItAX8OFRyWEoY2NWfyuK+VC8nKJPoOxbh+f1R/Fwr82RPWib eoYinh8sZnn0u22LVAfbNnzusi1mHlX7WucbJHnveV0pXNRK6qx5rAf7dLlIeT4g gAOJQ6J0gJFMxGWsAivtBuxuUFtoNDcggplW71Pg23IcElT41yTamAyR5qPYuESG V34XY6NEspyTwvaFWaF09bXrMUEDMk+teibTmwuPcD+GeyjroS16QIFzwbMYF3c+ 53xlfZdREUWq13AR3+Frw/kOJO5oPD0I65JZWc+BwTt15/x6CbDL8Sr8dD+QQ4IM S/B1Bit2hff0VBTXz61qjTeKMYtLC5n5Ar0H57Sq9n8c96Celog= =b8It -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lpMv28KEOCvrck7P54h0ntKRgAxCQQfBl--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?051a31cc-8904-a633-e6da-1fbf8380c07c>