Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 02:46:30 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <AANLkTi=VJu7z4MJoXhLLDnE4VWUv=F7o%2B2c8YGj3-0WT@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9352461C-9DEA-4778-8FAF-B60E22A4A7AB@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTi=n5n8Q%2BRkEH2EBtu0oVdTCC_ikaGdMO10Aoyuj@mail.gmail.com> <9352461C-9DEA-4778-8FAF-B60E22A4A7AB@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/13/11, Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >>>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and >>>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors. >>> >>> Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way >>> about? >> >> We need not look any farther than this episode to see an example of >> how things could have been handled better. I don't think that the >> course of action that was ultimately adopted was unreasonable, but did >> we have to wait from the 8 October, when I filed >> ports/151312 > > I quote from the PR log: > > State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended > State-Changed-By: ade > State-Changed-When: Fri Oct 8 16:40:29 UTC 2010 > State-Changed-Why: > gnu make 3.81 -> 3.82 is, sadly, exceptionally non-trivial. A number of > features present in releases prior to 3.82 are technically "wrong", and > this release has corrected them. A _lot_ of stuff breaks. It will be > looked at, but don't hold your breath. > > Plenty of other stuff was happening in autotools-land at the time. We had > already run a previous preliminary analysis of gmake 3.81->3.82 and it was > _not_ pretty. > > That update to the PR took just a little under 2 hours from initial > submission. Suggesting that it took until March 11th is disingenuous at > _best_ Your response, though initially prompt, doesn't contain any information, like that in Mark's recent message, that allows us to help solve any problems. As far as I can tell, you have not provided any specific results throughout the course of this update, even when repeatedly asked to do so. I did not follow up on this matter earlier, because I knew other, more pressing problems were being addressed, because I was myself busy, and because I saw no particular urgency to this update. I filed the ports/151312 as a reminder and a point-of-reference for progress reports on the update, probably for the same reasons that you later filed the duplicate ports/155215. I don't object to the course of action you proposed, and I understand that you and others have freely invested time and effort into this and other updates. But I think that the manner of your replies on this list and elsewhere has been unfortunate, even allowing for the fact that you may have been given some provocation. We expect and need more concrete information, and fewer ad hominem arguments and requests to defer to your judgment for unspecified or vague reasons. And now I think that we should bring this argument to a close, because we have spent too much time and energy on this matter, and aroused too much rancor, when we could have been doing more useful work. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=VJu7z4MJoXhLLDnE4VWUv=F7o%2B2c8YGj3-0WT>