xorg ports roadmap?

[vehemens]

On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:02:04 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 16:01 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Friday 27 November 2009 12:53:35 Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > > On 2009-Nov-26 14:55:40 -0800, vehemens <vehemens at verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >If your having so many problems with these updates, why not just split
> > > > ports into current and stable branches?
> > >
> > > This isn't as easy as it sounds because there are interactions between
> > > so many different pieces.  Back when X.org/XFree86 was a small number
> > > of ports (basically server, libraries and base clients), it wouldn't
> > > have been too hard.  X.org now comprises something like 250 pieces
> > > with not-very-well documented interactions.
> > >
> > > It might help if X.org could be cleanly split into client ports and
> > > server ports but even that's not possible because they both depend
> > > on a number of X-related libraries.
> >
> > The suggestion was to have the entire ports tree as both a current and
> > stable branch, then using the same (similar?) rules as used for the
> > source branches.
> >
> > A ports freeze would mean that changes to the stable branch would be
> > limited, but work could still go on in the current branch.
> >
> > The MFC process could be semi-automated.
>
> This is hard enough to manage in src for one -CURRENT and 2/3 stable
> branches... Ports would be insanity and would in no way help to address
> the current issues or reduce the amount of work needed to get things
> done.

You stated in a several earlier emails that you are having problems such as: a 
lengthy TODO list, complaints with ports breakage, coordination of multiple 
efforts to name a few.

If you have a better suggestion, then please make it as we would all like to 
hear it.