duration of the ports freeze

[David Southwell]

On Saturday 01 December 2007 10:28:40 Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:48:34AM -0800, David Southwell wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 December 2007 08:48:41 Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 07:49:00AM -0800, David Southwell wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 01 December 2007 05:58:21 Thierry Thomas wrote:
> > > > > On Sat  1 dec 07 at 14:25:08 +0100, Erik Trulsson
> > > > > <ertr1013 at student.uu.se>
> > > > >
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > The ports freeze is intended to make sure the ports tree is in a
> > > > > > stable and well tested state for the release.  Updating major
> > > > > > ports always carry a great risk of breaking things thus defeating
> > > > > > the point of the freeze.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, if the freeze is too long, and if the new version is
> > > > > released several weeks after the thaw, very few will install these
> > > > > packages: a lot of updates will be committed, and many users will
> > > > > update their ports tree to install the new versions. This is very
> > > > > difficult to find a good compromise!
> > > >
> > > > I do not think we need a compromise we need a different system. We
> > > > need one that preserves continuity of support for existing systems
> > > > while the new releases are testedin a way that does not adversely
> > > > impact them. The priority needs to be the current user base not a
> > > > desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs.
> > >
> > > Considering that FreeBSD releases almost always get delayed by several
> > > weeks compared to the original schedule I think it is safe to say that
> > > "a desire to rush a new release out the door at all costs" is something
> > > that the FreeBSD project certainly does not suffer from.
> >
> > I believe this to be head in the sand logic.IMHO It is rushing it out the
> > door at all costs if the cost is a port freeze!!!
>
> I do not follow your logic at all. I do not see the rushing part occuring.
> The ports freeze is a consequence of *not* rushing out the release, but
> instead pausing and making sure everything is right before making the
> release.
>
> > A port freeze is the most user
> > unfriendly act that one could think of!
>
> Not even close.  Having lots of broken ports would be much more user
> unfriendly.  To most users a ports freeze is probably no more than a minor
> inconvenience, if they even notice it.
>
> > > Now it may be that due to the ports freeze, there will be some ports
> > > whose upgrade will be delayed for a couple of weeks (not to be confused
> > > with those ports whose upgrade gets delayed for other reasons.)
> > > I do not consider this to be a major problem.
> > >
> > > I think you vastly overestimate the need for the ports tree to always
> > > have the latest versions of all softwares contained therein.
> >
> > The ports system and new release development systems need to move
> > seemlessly not interfere with one another. This means a rethink of the
> > fundamental assumptions that drive current policies and practice.
>
> What "fundamental assumptions" are you thinking of?
>
> > > In those very rare cases where a user just cannot wait 2-3 weeks extra
> > > for an upgrade, they can always try to build the software themselves
> > > outside the ports system.
> >
> > I regard this view as developer centric rather than user centric. As I
> > have said elsewhere the ports system is freebsd msp and users are not
> > naturally comnfortable with building outside the ports system. If they
> > were we would not need the system!!!
>
> I believe there is only a quite small minority of users who actually *need*
> to have all the ports updated as quickly as possible.  Most of those users
> are probably sufficiently technically proficient to be able to handle
> building things outside the ports system.
>
> All those users who want to be able to install a new release with
> accompanying packages and just want it to work 'out of the box' without
> *having* to upgrade anything are probably better off with the current
> policies.  I don't know, but I suspect those are the majority of ordinary
> users.

This sounds to me like wishful thinking but, more importantly, it seems like a 
diversion from reality. The real question is why on earth we cannot manage 
things better so no port freeze is needed!! Its very existence is a real or 
potential disadvantage to  users and a disadvantage that is both illogical 
and unnecessary. The number to whom it is disadvantageous will vary with 
circumstance. 
>
>
> 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.

We need to grasp the nettle while we may!!

David Southwell