From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 1 20:06:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DE816A468 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:06:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28C513C4F3 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:06:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-253-25-183.bredband.comhem.se ([83.253.25.183]:59447 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IyYbK-0004zG-6R for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:06:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 17978 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2007 21:06:04 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 1 Dec 2007 21:06:04 +0100 Received: (qmail 36176 invoked by uid 1001); 1 Dec 2007 21:06:04 +0100 Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:06:04 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: David Southwell Message-ID: <20071201200604.GA36099@owl.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: David Southwell , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org> <200712010948.34363.david@vizion2000.net> <20071201182840.GA35127@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <200712011149.11212.david@vizion2000.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200712011149.11212.david@vizion2000.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Originating-IP: 83.253.25.183 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1IyYbK-0004zG-6R. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1IyYbK-0004zG-6R 4ca4b6b4979cd8366ad3339c24aee270 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:06:13 -0000 On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 11:49:11AM -0800, David Southwell wrote: > On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:28:40 Erik Trulsson wrote: > > > > Personally, as a user, I have never really been even slightly inconvienced > > by any of the ports tree freezes. > > All I can say is bully for you! The question is how do we get rid of a > p[roblem even if it is not a disadvantage for you personally. It is > disappointing when one hears arguments not to change simply because one > particular individual is not disadvantaged by a currently illogical and > antiquated solution to a problem that will inevitably grow as the number of > ports increase. I am quite certain that I am not alone or even unusual in not having a problem with the current situation. I believe that for the majority of FreeBSD users the port freezes do not constitue a major problem - or even a problem at all. The current situation apparently constitute a problem for you, which is too bad, but you have failed to convince me that you are representative for more than a very small minority of FreeBSD users - and it is of course not possible to satisfy everybody. (And it is anyway not me you need to convince, since I have no official standing at all in the FreeBSD project.) As for your earlier claims that the process is developer-centric rather than user-centric, I would say that claim is just plain wrong. If anything I would say the code-freezes of both the base system and the ports tree is more inconvenient for the FreeBSD committers and port mainttainers than for the average user. The intent is to make sure each release is in good shape, in the belief that this is what is most important for the average user (from which follows that the state of the ports tree between releases is of somewhat lesser importance.) This belief might of course be wrong, but so far little evidence has been given to contradict it. It is disappointing to hear arguments to change simply because one particular individual is disadvantaged by the current situation, without any regard given to the fact that such a change might actually inconvenience a larger number of people. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se