Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:53:44 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: demelier.david@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1498206372.2506.1.camel@gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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) -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?666bfe8c-f27d-2c11-2a4a-07da43bb7931>