From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 8 00:26:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AFE16A420 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:26:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: from smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.79]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF6A943D46 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:26:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mikej@rogers.com) Received: (qmail 92385 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2006 00:26:08 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=JMshRIBqBbIiC1RcoYkZutwqN3LO8dbeoP6cbrVMT8S8T6xzYvFU06VVkOqQGQnpZDJpnd5DMeXv9ybULPr1iufOnATy/zUNfWgPTCwxKtEsh3TZkdp+f62EG+GFXcYwCDegEPU6LKzCHOfgmm/yVqA1ScqJM0YGWtF2tBTJewM= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?70.30.133.184?) (mikej@rogers.com@70.30.133.184 with plain) by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jan 2006 00:26:08 -0000 Message-ID: <43C05C21.4080500@rogers.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:26:09 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <834B3A07-EC76-4645-8E1B-7ABEA4EC999A@submonkey.net> <43BE57E9.9060507@rogers.com> <43BE61C9.9060502@ebs.gr> <43BE63E7.4060209@rogers.com> <20060106124508.GB14967@droopy.unibe.ch> <20060106125428.GC79296@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20060106131231.GC14967@droopy.unibe.ch> <43BF7430.80509@FreeBSD.org> <20060107191202.GA18881@droopy.unibe.ch> <43C0568F.7020909@rogers.com> <20060108001643.GA15000@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20060108001643.GA15000@soaustin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton Subject: Re: New rc.d code merge timing (Was: Re: Portupgrade confused about editors/emacs) 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: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 00:26:10 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:02:23PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > >> Shame on me for running -STABLE in production then. I've always done >> this though, but fortunately its never caused any serious problems. It >> is called STABLE after all. >> > > There was a lot more thought went into this than you are giving us credit > for. I was the person on portmgr who originally resisted this change. But > after talking through it thoroughly with Doug I finally agreed that there > was not going to be a better time to do this than now. We had a two-month > window before the 6.1 cycle and then we are going to have what may be a > prolonged release cycle because we are going to try to do 5.5 and 6.1 > simultaneously. > > Doug did indeed do testing on some of the major ports on -CURRENT and sent > mail to, and worked with, the maintainers to get as much of this right as > could be possible without more widespread testing. And with that 2-month > window, that was going to be as much testing as we can get. > > The idea is to make 6.1 rock-solid, and with these changes, so that things > will be simpler and more reliable in the future. If I didn't think we had > a very good chance to do it before 6.1, I would have attempted to stop the MFC. > > You need to have the background context that Doug and I have butted heads > before on other issues, so I'm not automatically going to agree with him on > anything. But in this situation he presented his case well, he did work > ahead of time, and has continued to follow-up everything that has been > brought to his attention. > > It's unfortunate that we had to take 1 step backwards to take 2 steps > forwards but that's life. The portmgr team spends a great deal of effort > in running regression tests of bsd.*.mk to avoid these kinds of regressions, > but even this kind of work cannot give you a 100% guarantee that nothing > will go wrong. > > I was just curious, didn't mean to imply anything because i didn't notice anything on the lists about this. I fully understand the concept of having to take a step back to take two forward, i have the same situation with my career now. So thanks to both of you for putting in the time, hopefully we can weed out all the problems before 6.1.