ports tree tagging again

[Roman Bogorodskiy]

  [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:

> And why is it that you always need to run the very latest version? Just
> pick the last package that was available. It's normally new enough.

Where have I said I need _lastest_ version of everything? You got it
totally wrong. I do not need lastest version of packages, I just want
packages were consistant and working, that's all.
 
> > 2. Port tree is unstable
> > 
> > IMO, port tree is not very stable. I mean: we're all human and more or
> > less often make mistakes and inaccurate commits. So you cannot be sure
> > that if you cvsup/portsnap your tree, it will not break something
> > (e.g. because of some typo). It's OK to have such errors in general, and
> > we can do nothing with it, but there are a lot of silly errors which
> > could be avoided and you definitely don't deal with on a stable system.
> 
> There's always something that can go wrong, especially if you deal with
> messy ports that require a compatibility layer. But native builds cause
> problems very rarely.
>  
> > II Solutions
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm going to talk about ports tree tagging again :-). So what I
> > propose: having HEAD and STABLE (or whatever you want't to call it, 
> > so e.g. not to confuse with src/) branches. Committers commit all 
> > patches to HEAD first. Then they wait for two things:
> >   - For next run on pointyhat to find out if package builds well
> >     (for a start, we could wait only for 6.x/i386 builds)
> >   - User feedback. Like, if there's no complains like "ahh, it
> >     broke everyhting, ahaha, please backout!", so everything's ok
> 
> What about security critical changes? Would you push them through that
> process as well? Read the portupgrade man page and look for the '-b'
> flag.

Security changes could be backported faster (but they should be reviewed
and tested better).

> If you want a branched system, why not use PKGSRC?

Because I want to use freebsd ports, not pkgsrc. I'm familiar with it
and I work with it for several years.
  
> > ...
> > 
> > Comments are welcome!
> 
> It is normally not necessary to have the very latest version of everything.
> With your approach you wouldn't really receive binaries earlier. Only
> people who are willing to build ports themselves receive the ports later.

It looks like you see only what you want to see, but not that I actually
wrote. I propose creating STABLE branch because I prefer to have more
stable and better tested software than new, but not enough stable
software.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060817/6d881cc1/attachment.pgp