Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:33:56 +0200
From:      Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version
Message-ID:  <b338bebb-c3ec-d761-fee0-61e537fec988@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <cc1c38a4-108c-5f3f-7fa1-400fdcf497f6@freebsd.org> <ee6fe33b-aa24-ae5f-f652-f940e15c247a@jetcafe.org> <1498157001.2235.1.camel@gmail.com> <ffe23575-09a8-9e8c-ab21-772ca5e71aa1@jetcafe.org> <1498206372.2506.1.camel@gmail.com> <666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/23/17 10:53, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On 06/23/17 10:26, demelier.david@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 11:57 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
>>> Would you agree that release branches would be unnecessary if
>>> somehow
>>> you could select the version of node that the ports tree builds via
>>> some
>>> (as yet unspecified) mechanism?
>>
>> I've also think about that but I'm not sure if it's easier than having
>> frozen release branches.
> 
> I usually stay away from this kind of threads, but I'd like to point out
> a very simple concept that has not been expressed.
> 
> The ports tree repository is fully open source, available via subversion
> from the FreeBSD project and also mirrored on github. There is
> absolutely nothing stopping you(and anyone with time, skill and
> willingness to help you) from starting your fork from whichever source
> and using whatever tool you prefer, creating the branches you're
> describing.
> 
> If your model works fine I'm quite sure the FreeBSD community and
> project will be quite happy to embrace it.
> 
> As stated, the FreeBSD project (core, portmgr and committers) perceive a
> manpower problem in relation to implementing what you describe. In this
> thread it has been stated that such a manpower problem does not really
> exist. I cannot think of a better way to show there actually is no
> manpower problem than creating a working example of such a workflow
> maintained by just a few people with little effort, as you said repeatedly.
> 
> On other hand demanding and/or insisting that others implement your idea
> when they clearly disagree with you is not very constructive.
> 
> In relation to the suggestion of a stable or release ports branch:
> 
> I'd also like a ports branch where things are merged only when really
> needed, some kind of "stable" branch. I don't like the release way you
> describe, but maybe it could actually work as an option, but I too see
> the manpower problem. An actual working proof of concept like I
> described above is the only thing that would persuade me I'm wrong about
> that.
> 
> (I could try to help with such an experiment but I don't know how much
> time I could really spare for it)
> 

I'll rephrase that to avoid further confusion:

(If such an effort is started with a clear idea and program, which I
don't have on such a project, I can try to participate as manpower to
it, even though I can't dedicate much time to it)

-- 
Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b338bebb-c3ec-d761-fee0-61e537fec988>